Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.tv.keith-olbermann > #2791 > unrolled thread

Distraught Leftists Pee On Their Own Faces In Protest Against Supreme Court Ruling

Back to article view | Back to alt.tv.keith-olbermann

Contents

  Distraught Leftists Pee On Their Own Faces In Protest Against Supreme Court Ruling Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> - 2024-03-06 11:41 -0500
    Re: Distraught Leftists Pee On Their Own Faces In Protest Against Supreme Court Ruling BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> - 2024-03-06 10:35 -0800
      Re: Distraught Leftists Pee On Their Own Faces In Protest Against Supreme Court Ruling Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> - 2024-03-06 14:08 -0500
      Re: Distraught Leftists Pee On Their Own Faces In Protest Against Supreme Court Ruling Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> - 2024-03-06 15:26 -0500
      Re: Distraught Leftists Pee On Their Own Faces In Protest Against Supreme Court Ruling anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> - 2024-03-06 17:57 -0700
      Re: Distraught Leftists Pee On Their Own Faces In Protest Against Supreme Court Ruling The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> - 2024-03-06 23:04 -0800
      Re: Distraught Leftists Pee On Their Own Faces In Protest Against Supreme Court Ruling trotsky <gmsingh@email.com> - 2024-03-07 03:04 -0600

#2791 — Distraught Leftists Pee On Their Own Faces In Protest Against Supreme Court Ruling

From the moment the Colorado Supreme Court disqualified Donald Trump from the 
ballot a few months ago, it was obvious that their decision would be 
overturned. As I discussed on this show at the time, there were so many flaws 
with the opinion, it was difficult to know where to begin. The decision 
ignored Donald Trump’s calls for peaceful demonstration on January 6th. It 
accused him of speaking in violent coded language because he was mean to some 
random protesters at his rallies. And then it concluded that a single 
Colorado bureaucrat had the power to effectively delete his entire candidacy. 
It’s not worth rehashing all of the details. This was a decision that any 
reasonably informed person knew was going to be overturned.

Unfortunately, what’s become very clear in the past 24 hours is that a very 
large number of people in this country are not reasonably informed. Instead, 
they’re told to pay attention when Rachel Maddow beams into MSNBC to tell 
viewers that Donald Trump might soon be barred from the ballot in multiple 
states. They’re bombarded with junk “analysis,” like CNN’s assessment that 
the legal case for kicking Trump off the ballot was strong. And they’re fed 
think-pieces from buffoons like Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, who 
called the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision “unassailable.”

Think about that for a second. You can get a more accurate assessment of 
constitutional law issues from a conservative podcast than you can from an 
esteemed Harvard Law professor who supposedly specializes in Constitutional 
Law. With as far as Harvard has fallen in the past decade or so, that may not 
be surprising. But it’s worth pointing out because of the implications for 
the rest of the country.

Millions of people listen to con artists with very fancy titles who lie to 
them as a matter of course. And even when these con artists are exposed — as 
they were yesterday — they make it very clear that they’re not backing down. 
We saw that again and again in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s unanimous 
decision yesterday, striking down the decision by the Colorado Supreme Court.

I’ll begin with Keith Olbermann, who was so worked up in the aftermath of the 
Supreme Court’s decision that he apparently admitted to having urine all over 
his face. This is not an exaggeration, although I — and everyone else who 
happened to be using Twitter yesterday — very much wishes it were. Here’s how 
Keith’s day began. He tweeted, quote, “The Supreme Court has betrayed 
democracy. Its members including Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved 
themselves inept at reading comprehension. And collectively the ‘court’ has 
shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate. It must be dissolved.”

	The Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members including 
	Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading 
	comprehension. And collectively the "court" has shown itself to be 
	corrupt and illegitimate.

	It must be dissolved.

	— Keith Olbermann?? (@KeithOlbermann) March 4, 2024

So we’re not packing the court anymore. We’re just going to get rid of the 
whole thing, according to Olbermann. In response, someone helpfully pointed 
out that the Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous. Here was the reply: “Cry 
more …. 9-0.”

Olbermann, reading this, announced: “Those aren’t tears, Fascist. They’re 
urine. I’m sure you enjoy being bathed in it.”

At best, that is the single worst comeback you could possibly imagine in that 
circumstance. At worst, it’s an admission of exactly the kind of deviant 
behavior you’d expect Olbermann would engage in, all of the time. Although we 
can’t be sure if Olbermann pees on his own face, or if someone else does it. 
There are many details left obscured here, and probably for the best. 

As distressing as these thoughts may be, the truth is that Olbermann isn’t 
alone on the Left. In response to yesterday’s decision, Colorado Secretary of 
State Jena Griswold — the woman who unilaterally tried to have Trump thrown 
off the ballot — also began attacking the Supreme Court. Watch:

	More lunacy from Colorado's Jena Griswold, lashing out at Clarence 
	Thomas and bashing the Court’s — while offering fake platitudes we 
	should be respect them.

	MSNBC’s Katy Tur: “Do you think this Court is partisan?”

	Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswolf (D): “I think this… 
	pic.twitter.com/LzVtQalKek

	— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) March 4, 2024

Just to restate how absurd this is — the Supreme Court’s decision was 
unanimous. It was a 9-0 vote, overturning what this secretary of state did. 
And instead of grappling with the implications of that, both the interviewer 
and the woman with the crazy eyes (Griswold) pretend as though this was a 
partisan decision. That’s how the question was framed, and it’s how Griswold 
responds. She goes off into some bizarre discussion about Clarence Thomas. 
They use the exact same talking points they used back when the Dobbs decision 
came out.

There’s a reason they’re doing this, which I’ll get into a moment. But for 
now it’s important to highlight some more unhinged responses to the Supreme 
Court’s ruling — because you have to understand how truly, profoundly Donald 
Trump has broken these people. Elsewhere on MSNBC for example, a Slate 
columnist disclosed that he went rooting around the metadata of the Supreme 
Court’s decision. In case you’re not familiar with this process, because 
you’re a normal person, here’s what this columnist wrote on Twitter: “If you 
double click where it says ‘JJ.’ at the top, then copy and paste it, that 
line reads: SOTOMAYOR , J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. And if 
you do a control-F search for “SOTOMAYOR , J., concurring in part and 
dissenting in part,” it highlights that same line.”

In other words, if you highlight some arbitrary portion of the opinion, 
you’ll find some evidence in the metadata that previously — before this 
opinion was published — Sonia Sotomayor may have written a dissenting 
opinion, instead of joining the 9-0 final majority opinion. This is a 
discovery that could mean a clerk made a minor mistake somewhere and then 
corrected it before publishing, which would not be a remotely interesting 
development. But it could also mean that Sonia Sotomayor changed her mind at 
some point in the deliberations, which also would not be a remotely 
interesting development.

In any event, Slate and MSNBC found this development highly interesting. 
Watch as the Slate columnist breathlessly informs viewers of his findings 
deep in the metadata of the court’s opinion:

	@mjs_DC explains how metadata suggests that the concurring opinion 
	by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson in the Supreme Court ruling 
	on Trump's ballot eligibility might have initially been a dissent. 
	pic.twitter.com/SsJGdB3Aoc

	— MSNBC Reports (@MSNBC_reports) March 4, 2024

If you listen carefully to what the Slate guy is saying, you’ll notice that 
he has no proof whatsoever for any of it. He doesn’t actually know that this 
change in the opinion was made “late” in the process. He doesn’t really know 
why the metadata says that Sotomayor was dissenting. It’s just speculation. 
And the point of it is to avoid informing viewers that actually, all of the 
experts you’ve heard on MSNBC for the past three months have been lying to 
you. Not even Sonia Sotomayor or Ketanji Brown Jackson or Amy Coney Barrett 
agree with them. That’s the last thing they want you to think about.

The New York Times also went into histrionics for the same reason. They 
published an op-ed claiming that the Supreme Court had just “erased” part of 
the Constitution. They find it easier to make embarrassing, emotional claims 
than to address, in any way, all of the B.S. they’ve been peddling about this 
case. For people who pretend to care so much about “misinformation,” it’s 
striking.

The fact none of these media organizations is reflecting on this failure 
tells us a lot about what they’re planning. Just like we saw during 
Russiagate, they’re not going to acknowledge their mistakes. They’re not 
going to give up on their goal of removing the leading presidential candidate 
from the ballot — all in the name of “defending democracy.” Instead, their 
plan is simply to adapt, and find new ways to undermine the will of tens of 
millions of American voters. 

It’s important to emphasize here that four justices — Sotomayor, Kagan, 
Ketanji Brown Jackson, and the supposedly conservative Amy Coney Barrett — 
tried their hardest to preserve this possibility in yesterday’s ruling. They 
all suggested that, while states can’t bar Trump from the ballot, there might 
be a way for the federal government to do it, without an act of Congress.

What does that mean, exactly? That’s not clear. Amy Coney Barrett won’t tell 
us. Maybe soon enough, we’ll find out.

Until then, congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland has made it very clear that 
Democrats will press forward with an effort to disqualify Trump using an act 
of Congress. In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling — which held that only 
Congress, rather than states, can disqualify federal officeholders for 
insurrection — Raksin went on television to announce that Democrats in 
Congress will indeed do everything they can to disqualify Donald Trump from 
the ballot.

	Rep. Jamie Raskin reveals he is working with Debbie Wasserman 
	Schultz, Eric Swalwell, and other Democrats to pass a bill aimed 
	at removing the leading Republican presidential candidate from 
	the ballot.

	Is this "defending democracy" & "fighting fascism"?
	pic.twitter.com/OgVBx9aAAY

	— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) March 4, 2024

This is the same threat that Democrats made after the Supreme Court 
overturned Roe v. Wade. The thought of giving up never crosses their minds. 
The thought of allowing voters in each of the 50 states to make their own 
decisions — whether it’s about abortion, or presidential candidates — never 
crosses their minds, either.

If you page through the Washington Post’s comments section, you’ll see that 
very clearly. Millions of Left-wing voters want Jamie Raskin to pass his 
bill, and forcibly remove Donald Trump from the ballot. And they have some 
very high-level support. As the podcaster Comfortably Smug pointed out the 
other day, “Left Wing Dark Money groups like Fix The Court are focused on 
packing the court, and their former director now works for the Biden 
campaign.”

What this means is that, as deranged as Keith Olbermann is, he’s actually not 
an outlier on the Left. He’s popular because he’s willing to say what they’re 
thinking. He is the face of all their worst impulses and ideas. And they are 
so committed to winning — so committed to preventing you from voting — that 
they truly don’t care whether that face is drenched in urine or not.

--
Let's go Brandon!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#2792

In article <usa6bk$gogq$5@dont-email.me>,
 Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

> From the moment the Colorado Supreme Court disqualified Donald Trump from the 
> ballot a few months ago, it was obvious that their decision would be 
> overturned. As I discussed on this show at the time, there were so many flaws 
> with the opinion, it was difficult to know where to begin. The decision 
> ignored Donald Trump's calls for peaceful demonstration on January 6th. It 
> accused him of speaking in violent coded language because he was mean to some 
> random protesters at his rallies. And then it concluded that a single 
> Colorado bureaucrat had the power to effectively delete his entire candidacy. 
> It’s not worth rehashing all of the details. This was a decision that any 
> reasonably informed person knew was going to be overturned.
> 
> Unfortunately, what's become very clear in the past 24 hours is that a very 
> large number of people in this country are not reasonably informed. Instead, 
> they're told to pay attention when Rachel Maddow beams into MSNBC to tell 
> viewers that Donald Trump might soon be barred from the ballot in multiple 
> states. They're bombarded with junk "analysis", like CNN's assessment that 
> the legal case for kicking Trump off the ballot was strong. And they're fed 
> think-pieces from buffoons like Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, who 
> called the Colorado Supreme Court's decision "unassailable".
> 
> Think about that for a second. You can get a more accurate assessment of 
> constitutional law issues from a conservative podcast than you can from an 
> esteemed Harvard Law professor who supposedly specializes in Constitutional 
> Law.

Tribe used to be quite good. He always leaned a little left in his 
analyses but they were always well grounded in both history and law.

Then Trump got elected and I swear it broke something in him. He's been 
a raving lunatic ever since.

Giuliani is another example. When he was mayor of New York, he cleaned 
up a city that had been wallowing in crime and decay for decades and he 
did it in record time. And he saw the city through 9-11 in an exemplary 
way. He's probably the best example of a big-city mayor in our lifetime. 
Then he became a Trump insider and he went nuts. Now he's a gibbering 
ghost of his former self who no one takes seriously and *that* will be 
his legacy, not his accomplishments as mayor.

> I'll begin with Keith Olbermann

Mr. Piss Tears himself! Crowder did a whole segment on the guy and his 
"urine tears" that was both hilarious and devastating. One can only 
imagine Olbermann listening to it in his dank basement screaming "I know 
you are but what am I?!?"

(The bit was made perfect by Crowder's excellent vocal impression of 
Olbermann. Never knew the guy was so talented.)

> who was so worked up in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision that
> he apparently admitted to having urine all over his face. This is not an
> exaggeration, although I-- and everyone else who happened to be using
> Twitter yesterday-- very much wishes it were. Here's how Keith's day began.
> He tweeted,"The Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members including
> Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading
> comprehension. And collectively the 'court' has shown itself to be corrupt
> and illegitimate. It must be dissolved."

Olbermann never bothered explaining how that's supposed to happen, since 
there's no provision in the Constitution for dissolving the Supreme 
Court. Which means any attempt to do so would be... wait for it... an 
insurrection. Which I'm reliably informed is a bad thing that we should 
avoid.

I guess leftist insurrections are somehow 'different', as per usual.

> So we're not packing the court anymore. We're just going to get rid of the 
> whole thing, according to Olbermann. In response, someone helpfully pointed 
> out that the Supreme Court's decision was unanimous: "Cry more... 9-0."
> 
> Olbermann, reading this, announced: "Those aren't tears, Fascist. They're 
> urine. I'm sure you enjoy being bathed in it."
> 
> At best, that is the single worst comeback you could possibly imagine in that 
> circumstance. At worst, it's an admission of exactly the kind of deviant 
> behavior you'd expect Olbermann would engage in all of the time. (Although we 
> can't be sure if Olbermann pees on his own face or if someone else does it.) 
> There are many details left obscured here and probably for the best. 
> 
> As distressing as these thoughts may be, the truth is that Olbermann isn't 
> alone on the Left. In response to yesterday's decision, Colorado Secretary of 
> State Jena Griswold-- the woman who unilaterally tried to have Trump thrown 
> off the ballot-- also began attacking the Supreme Court.

> Just to restate how absurd this is-- the Supreme Court's decision was 
> unanimous. It was a 9-0 vote, overturning what this secretary of state did. 
> And instead of grappling with the implications of that, both the interviewer 
> and the woman with the crazy eyes (Griswold) pretend as though this was a 
> partisan decision. That's how the question was framed and it's how Griswold 
> responds. She goes off into some bizarre discussion about Clarence Thomas. 
> They use the exact same talking points they used back when the Dobbs decision 
> came out.
> 
> There's a reason they're doing this which I'll get into a moment. But for 
> now it's important to highlight some more unhinged responses to the Supreme 
> Court’s ruling-- because you have to understand how truly, profoundly Donald 
> Trump has broken these people. Elsewhere on MSNBC for example, a Slate 
> columnist disclosed that he went rooting around the metadata of the Supreme 
> Court's decision. In case you're not familiar with this process, because 
> you're a normal person, here's what this columnist wrote on Twitter: "If you 
> double click where it says 'JJ.' at the top, then copy and paste it, that 
> line reads: SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. And if 
> you do a control-F search for 'SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in part and 
> dissenting in part', it highlights that same line."
> 
> In other words, if you highlight some arbitrary portion of the opinion, 
> you'll find some evidence in the metadata that previously-- before this 
> opinion was published-- Sonia Sotomayor may have written a dissenting 
> opinion instead of joining the 9-0 final majority opinion. This is a 
> discovery that could mean a clerk made a minor mistake somewhere and then 
> corrected it before publishing, which would not be a remotely interesting 
> development. But it could also mean that Sonia Sotomayor changed her mind at 
> some point in the deliberations, which also would not be a remotely 
> interesting development.
> 
> In any event, Slate and MSNBC found this development highly interesting. 
> Watch as the Slate columnist breathlessly informs viewers of his findings 
> deep in the metadata of the court's opinion:
> 
> 	@mjs_DC explains how metadata suggests that the concurring opinion 
> 	by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson in the Supreme Court ruling 
> 	on Trump's ballot eligibility might have initially been a dissent. 
> 	pic.twitter.com/SsJGdB3Aoc
> 
> 	--MSNBC Reports (@MSNBC_reports) March 4, 2024
> 
> If you listen carefully to what the Slate guy is saying, you'll notice that 
> he has no proof whatsoever for any of it. He doesn't actually know that this 
> change in the opinion was made "late in the process". He doesn't really know 
> why the metadata says that Sotomayor was dissenting. It's just speculation. 
> And the point of it is to avoid informing viewers that actually, all of the 
> experts you've heard on MSNBC for the past three months have been lying to 
> you. Not even Sonia Sotomayor or Ketanji Brown Jackson or Amy Coney Barrett 
> agree with them. That's the last thing they want you to think about.
> 
> The New York Times also went into histrionics for the same reason. They 
> published an op-ed claiming that the Supreme Court had just "erased part of 
> the Constitution". They find it easier to make embarrassing, emotional claims 
> than to address, in any way, all of the B.S. they've been peddling about this 
> case. For people who pretend to care so much about "misinformation", it's 
> striking.
> 
> The fact none of these media organizations is reflecting on this failure 
> tells us a lot about what they're planning. Just like we saw during 
> Russiagate, they're not going to acknowledge their mistakes. They're not 
> going to give up on their goal of removing the leading presidential candidate 
> from the ballot-- all in the name of "defending democracy". Instead, their 
> plan is simply to adapt and find new ways to undermine the will of tens of 
> millions of American voters. 
> 
> It's important to emphasize here that four justices-- Sotomayor, Kagan, 
> Jackson, and the supposedly conservative Barrett-- tried their hardest to
> preserve this possibility in yesterday's ruling. They all suggested that,
> while states can't bar Trump from the ballot, there might be a way for the
> federal government to do it without an act of Congress.
> 
> What does that mean, exactly? That's not clear. Amy Coney Barrett won't tell 
> us. Maybe soon enough, we'll find out.
> 
> Until then, congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland has made it very clear that 
> Democrats will press forward with an effort to disqualify Trump using an act 
> of Congress. In response to the Supreme Court's ruling-- which held that only 
> Congress, rather than states, can disqualify federal officeholders for 
> insurrection-- Raskin went on television to announce that Democrats in 
> Congress will indeed do everything they can to disqualify Donald Trump from 
> the ballot.
> 
> 	Rep. Jamie Raskin reveals he is working with Debbie Wasserman 
> 	Schultz, Eric Swalwell, and other Democrats to pass a bill aimed 
> 	at removing the leading Republican presidential candidate from 
> 	the ballot.
> 
> 	Is this "defending democracy" & "fighting fascism"?
> 	pic.twitter.com/OgVBx9aAAY
> 
> 	--KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) March 4, 2024
> 
> This is the same threat that Democrats made after the Supreme Court 
> overturned Roe v. Wade. The thought of giving up never crosses their minds. 
> The thought of allowing voters in each of the 50 states to make their own 
> decisions-- whether it's about abortion, or presidential candidates-- never 
> crosses their minds, either.
> 
> If you page through the Washington Post's comments section, you'll see that 
> very clearly. Millions of left-wing voters want Jamie Raskin to pass his 
> bill and forcibly remove Donald Trump from the ballot. And they have some 
> very high-level support. As the podcaster Comfortably Smug pointed out the 
> other day, "Left-wing dark money groups like Fix The Court are focused on 
> packing the court and their former director now works for the Biden 
> campaign."
> 
> What this means is that, as deranged as Keith Olbermann is, he's actually not 
> an outlier on the Left. He's popular because he's willing to say what they're 
> thinking. He is the face of all their worst impulses and ideas. And they are 
> so committed to winning-- so committed to preventing you from voting-- that 
> they truly don't care whether that face is drenched in urine or not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2793

On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 10:35:34 -0800
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <usa6bk$gogq$5@dont-email.me>,
>  Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> 
> > From the moment the Colorado Supreme Court disqualified Donald
> > Trump from the ballot a few months ago, it was obvious that their
> > decision would be overturned. As I discussed on this show at the
> > time, there were so many flaws with the opinion, it was difficult
> > to know where to begin. The decision ignored Donald Trump's calls
> > for peaceful demonstration on January 6th. It accused him of
> > speaking in violent coded language because he was mean to some
> > random protesters at his rallies. And then it concluded that a
> > single Colorado bureaucrat had the power to effectively delete his
> > entire candidacy. It’s not worth rehashing all of the details. This
> > was a decision that any reasonably informed person knew was going
> > to be overturned.
> > 
> > Unfortunately, what's become very clear in the past 24 hours is
> > that a very large number of people in this country are not
> > reasonably informed. Instead, they're told to pay attention when
> > Rachel Maddow beams into MSNBC to tell viewers that Donald Trump
> > might soon be barred from the ballot in multiple states. They're
> > bombarded with junk "analysis", like CNN's assessment that the
> > legal case for kicking Trump off the ballot was strong. And they're
> > fed think-pieces from buffoons like Harvard Law professor Laurence
> > Tribe, who called the Colorado Supreme Court's decision
> > "unassailable".
> > 
> > Think about that for a second. You can get a more accurate
> > assessment of constitutional law issues from a conservative podcast
> > than you can from an esteemed Harvard Law professor who supposedly
> > specializes in Constitutional Law.  
> 
> Tribe used to be quite good. He always leaned a little left in his 
> analyses but they were always well grounded in both history and law.
> 
> Then Trump got elected and I swear it broke something in him. He's
> been a raving lunatic ever since.
> 
> Giuliani is another example. When he was mayor of New York, he
> cleaned up a city that had been wallowing in crime and decay for
> decades and he did it in record time. And he saw the city through
> 9-11 in an exemplary way. He's probably the best example of a
> big-city mayor in our lifetime. Then he became a Trump insider and he
> went nuts. Now he's a gibbering ghost of his former self who no one
> takes seriously and *that* will be his legacy, not his
> accomplishments as mayor.
> 
> > I'll begin with Keith Olbermann  
> 
> Mr. Piss Tears himself! Crowder did a whole segment on the guy and
> his "urine tears" that was both hilarious and devastating. One can
> only imagine Olbermann listening to it in his dank basement screaming
> "I know you are but what am I?!?"
> 
> (The bit was made perfect by Crowder's excellent vocal impression of 
> Olbermann. Never knew the guy was so talented.)
> 
> > who was so worked up in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's
> > decision that he apparently admitted to having urine all over his
> > face. This is not an exaggeration, although I-- and everyone else
> > who happened to be using Twitter yesterday-- very much wishes it
> > were. Here's how Keith's day began. He tweeted,"The Supreme Court
> > has betrayed democracy. Its members including Jackson, Kagan and
> > Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension.
> > And collectively the 'court' has shown itself to be corrupt and
> > illegitimate. It must be dissolved."  
> 
> Olbermann never bothered explaining how that's supposed to happen,
> since there's no provision in the Constitution for dissolving the
> Supreme Court. Which means any attempt to do so would be... wait for
> it... an insurrection. Which I'm reliably informed is a bad thing
> that we should avoid.
> 
> I guess leftist insurrections are somehow 'different', as per usual.
> 
I have no doubt that Olberman would happily shoot all 9 justices dead
himself if someone would only give him a gun and access to the
justices. He's easily that deranged. Of course, he'd expect to be
honoured as the Saviour of the Nation and would never EVER shut up
about his "heroism".... 

> > So we're not packing the court anymore. We're just going to get rid
> > of the whole thing, according to Olbermann. In response, someone
> > helpfully pointed out that the Supreme Court's decision was
> > unanimous: "Cry more... 9-0."
> > 
> > Olbermann, reading this, announced: "Those aren't tears, Fascist.
> > They're urine. I'm sure you enjoy being bathed in it."
> > 
> > At best, that is the single worst comeback you could possibly
> > imagine in that circumstance. At worst, it's an admission of
> > exactly the kind of deviant behavior you'd expect Olbermann would
> > engage in all of the time. (Although we can't be sure if Olbermann
> > pees on his own face or if someone else does it.) There are many
> > details left obscured here and probably for the best. 
> > 
> > As distressing as these thoughts may be, the truth is that
> > Olbermann isn't alone on the Left. In response to yesterday's
> > decision, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold-- the woman who
> > unilaterally tried to have Trump thrown off the ballot-- also began
> > attacking the Supreme Court.  
> 
> > Just to restate how absurd this is-- the Supreme Court's decision
> > was unanimous. It was a 9-0 vote, overturning what this secretary
> > of state did. And instead of grappling with the implications of
> > that, both the interviewer and the woman with the crazy eyes
> > (Griswold) pretend as though this was a partisan decision. That's
> > how the question was framed and it's how Griswold responds. She
> > goes off into some bizarre discussion about Clarence Thomas. They
> > use the exact same talking points they used back when the Dobbs
> > decision came out.
> > 
> > There's a reason they're doing this which I'll get into a moment.
> > But for now it's important to highlight some more unhinged
> > responses to the Supreme Court’s ruling-- because you have to
> > understand how truly, profoundly Donald Trump has broken these
> > people. Elsewhere on MSNBC for example, a Slate columnist disclosed
> > that he went rooting around the metadata of the Supreme Court's
> > decision. In case you're not familiar with this process, because
> > you're a normal person, here's what this columnist wrote on
> > Twitter: "If you double click where it says 'JJ.' at the top, then
> > copy and paste it, that line reads: SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in
> > part and dissenting in part. And if you do a control-F search for
> > 'SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part', it
> > highlights that same line."
> > 
> > In other words, if you highlight some arbitrary portion of the
> > opinion, you'll find some evidence in the metadata that
> > previously-- before this opinion was published-- Sonia Sotomayor
> > may have written a dissenting opinion instead of joining the 9-0
> > final majority opinion. This is a discovery that could mean a clerk
> > made a minor mistake somewhere and then corrected it before
> > publishing, which would not be a remotely interesting development.
> > But it could also mean that Sonia Sotomayor changed her mind at
> > some point in the deliberations, which also would not be a remotely
> > interesting development.
> > 
> > In any event, Slate and MSNBC found this development highly
> > interesting. Watch as the Slate columnist breathlessly informs
> > viewers of his findings deep in the metadata of the court's opinion:
> > 
> > 	@mjs_DC explains how metadata suggests that the concurring
> > opinion by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson in the Supreme
> > Court ruling on Trump's ballot eligibility might have initially
> > been a dissent. pic.twitter.com/SsJGdB3Aoc
> > 
> > 	--MSNBC Reports (@MSNBC_reports) March 4, 2024
> > 
> > If you listen carefully to what the Slate guy is saying, you'll
> > notice that he has no proof whatsoever for any of it. He doesn't
> > actually know that this change in the opinion was made "late in the
> > process". He doesn't really know why the metadata says that
> > Sotomayor was dissenting. It's just speculation. And the point of
> > it is to avoid informing viewers that actually, all of the experts
> > you've heard on MSNBC for the past three months have been lying to
> > you. Not even Sonia Sotomayor or Ketanji Brown Jackson or Amy Coney
> > Barrett agree with them. That's the last thing they want you to
> > think about.
> > 
> > The New York Times also went into histrionics for the same reason.
> > They published an op-ed claiming that the Supreme Court had just
> > "erased part of the Constitution". They find it easier to make
> > embarrassing, emotional claims than to address, in any way, all of
> > the B.S. they've been peddling about this case. For people who
> > pretend to care so much about "misinformation", it's striking.
> > 
> > The fact none of these media organizations is reflecting on this
> > failure tells us a lot about what they're planning. Just like we
> > saw during Russiagate, they're not going to acknowledge their
> > mistakes. They're not going to give up on their goal of removing
> > the leading presidential candidate from the ballot-- all in the
> > name of "defending democracy". Instead, their plan is simply to
> > adapt and find new ways to undermine the will of tens of millions
> > of American voters. 
> > 
> > It's important to emphasize here that four justices-- Sotomayor,
> > Kagan, Jackson, and the supposedly conservative Barrett-- tried
> > their hardest to preserve this possibility in yesterday's ruling.
> > They all suggested that, while states can't bar Trump from the
> > ballot, there might be a way for the federal government to do it
> > without an act of Congress.
> > 
> > What does that mean, exactly? That's not clear. Amy Coney Barrett
> > won't tell us. Maybe soon enough, we'll find out.
> > 
> > Until then, congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland has made it very
> > clear that Democrats will press forward with an effort to
> > disqualify Trump using an act of Congress. In response to the
> > Supreme Court's ruling-- which held that only Congress, rather than
> > states, can disqualify federal officeholders for insurrection--
> > Raskin went on television to announce that Democrats in Congress
> > will indeed do everything they can to disqualify Donald Trump from
> > the ballot.
> > 
> > 	Rep. Jamie Raskin reveals he is working with Debbie
> > Wasserman Schultz, Eric Swalwell, and other Democrats to pass a
> > bill aimed at removing the leading Republican presidential
> > candidate from the ballot.
> > 
> > 	Is this "defending democracy" & "fighting fascism"?
> > 	pic.twitter.com/OgVBx9aAAY
> > 
> > 	--KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) March 4, 2024
> > 
> > This is the same threat that Democrats made after the Supreme Court 
> > overturned Roe v. Wade. The thought of giving up never crosses
> > their minds. The thought of allowing voters in each of the 50
> > states to make their own decisions-- whether it's about abortion,
> > or presidential candidates-- never crosses their minds, either.
> > 
> > If you page through the Washington Post's comments section, you'll
> > see that very clearly. Millions of left-wing voters want Jamie
> > Raskin to pass his bill and forcibly remove Donald Trump from the
> > ballot. And they have some very high-level support. As the
> > podcaster Comfortably Smug pointed out the other day, "Left-wing
> > dark money groups like Fix The Court are focused on packing the
> > court and their former director now works for the Biden campaign."
> > 
> > What this means is that, as deranged as Keith Olbermann is, he's
> > actually not an outlier on the Left. He's popular because he's
> > willing to say what they're thinking. He is the face of all their
> > worst impulses and ideas. And they are so committed to winning-- so
> > committed to preventing you from voting-- that they truly don't
> > care whether that face is drenched in urine or not.  



-- 
Rhino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2794

atropos@mac.com wrote:
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

>> I'll begin with Keith Olbermann
>
>Mr. Piss Tears himself! Crowder did a whole segment on the guy and his 
>"urine tears" that was both hilarious and devastating. One can only 
>imagine Olbermann listening to it in his dank basement screaming "I know 
>you are but what am I?!?"
>
>(The bit was made perfect by Crowder's excellent vocal impression of 
>Olbermann. Never knew the guy was so talented.)

I saw it! It was *GLORIOUS*!

https://youtu.be/NvJPxvYk5sE?si=7Hk81OXY-4rD7egh



--
Let's go Brandon!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2795

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <usa6bk$gogq$5@dont-email.me>,
>  Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> 
>> From the moment the Colorado Supreme Court disqualified Donald Trump from the 
>> ballot a few months ago, it was obvious that their decision would be 
>> overturned. As I discussed on this show at the time, there were so many flaws 
>> with the opinion, it was difficult to know where to begin. The decision 
>> ignored Donald Trump's calls for peaceful demonstration on January 6th. It 
>> accused him of speaking in violent coded language because he was mean to some 
>> random protesters at his rallies. And then it concluded that a single 
>> Colorado bureaucrat had the power to effectively delete his entire candidacy. 
>> It’s not worth rehashing all of the details. This was a decision that any 
>> reasonably informed person knew was going to be overturned.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, what's become very clear in the past 24 hours is that a very 
>> large number of people in this country are not reasonably informed. Instead, 
>> they're told to pay attention when Rachel Maddow beams into MSNBC to tell 
>> viewers that Donald Trump might soon be barred from the ballot in multiple 
>> states. They're bombarded with junk "analysis", like CNN's assessment that 
>> the legal case for kicking Trump off the ballot was strong. And they're fed 
>> think-pieces from buffoons like Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, who 
>> called the Colorado Supreme Court's decision "unassailable".
>> 
>> Think about that for a second. You can get a more accurate assessment of 
>> constitutional law issues from a conservative podcast than you can from an 
>> esteemed Harvard Law professor who supposedly specializes in Constitutional 
>> Law.
> 
> Tribe used to be quite good. He always leaned a little left in his 
> analyses but they were always well grounded in both history and law.
> 
> Then Trump got elected and I swear it broke something in him. He's been 
> a raving lunatic ever since.
> 
> Giuliani is another example. When he was mayor of New York, he cleaned 
> up a city that had been wallowing in crime and decay for decades and he 
> did it in record time. And he saw the city through 9-11 in an exemplary 
> way. He's probably the best example of a big-city mayor in our lifetime. 
> Then he became a Trump insider and he went nuts. Now he's a gibbering 
> ghost of his former self who no one takes seriously and *that* will be 
> his legacy, not his accomplishments as mayor.
> 
>> I'll begin with Keith Olbermann
> 
> Mr. Piss Tears himself! Crowder did a whole segment on the guy and his 
> "urine tears" that was both hilarious and devastating. One can only 
> imagine Olbermann listening to it in his dank basement screaming "I know 
> you are but what am I?!?"
> 
> (The bit was made perfect by Crowder's excellent vocal impression of 
> Olbermann. Never knew the guy was so talented.)

Let’s not forget the tens of thousands of people Olbermann murdered down
Florida way, and that’s just scratching the Surface.


> 
>> who was so worked up in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision that
>> he apparently admitted to having urine all over his face. This is not an
>> exaggeration, although I-- and everyone else who happened to be using
>> Twitter yesterday-- very much wishes it were. Here's how Keith's day began.
>> He tweeted,"The Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members including
>> Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading
>> comprehension. And collectively the 'court' has shown itself to be corrupt
>> and illegitimate. It must be dissolved."
> 
> Olbermann never bothered explaining how that's supposed to happen, since 
> there's no provision in the Constitution for dissolving the Supreme 
> Court. 

I say, we crack open the ark of the covenant and yell “HEY LOOK!“



Which means any attempt to do so would be... wait for it... an 
> insurrection. Which I'm reliably informed is a bad thing that we should 
> avoid.
> 
> I guess leftist insurrections are somehow 'different', as per usual.
> 
>> So we're not packing the court anymore. We're just going to get rid of the 
>> whole thing, according to Olbermann. In response, someone helpfully pointed 
>> out that the Supreme Court's decision was unanimous: "Cry more... 9-0."
>> 
>> Olbermann, reading this, announced: "Those aren't tears, Fascist. They're 
>> urine. I'm sure you enjoy being bathed in it."
>> 
>> At best, that is the single worst comeback you could possibly imagine in that 
>> circumstance. At worst, it's an admission of exactly the kind of deviant 
>> behavior you'd expect Olbermann would engage in all of the time. (Although we 
>> can't be sure if Olbermann pees on his own face or if someone else does it.) 
>> There are many details left obscured here and probably for the best. 
>> 
>> As distressing as these thoughts may be, the truth is that Olbermann isn't 
>> alone on the Left. In response to yesterday's decision, Colorado Secretary of 
>> State Jena Griswold-- the woman who unilaterally tried to have Trump thrown 
>> off the ballot-- also began attacking the Supreme Court.
> 
>> Just to restate how absurd this is-- the Supreme Court's decision was 
>> unanimous. It was a 9-0 vote, overturning what this secretary of state did. 
>> And instead of grappling with the implications of that, both the interviewer 
>> and the woman with the crazy eyes (Griswold) pretend as though this was a 
>> partisan decision. That's how the question was framed and it's how Griswold 
>> responds. She goes off into some bizarre discussion about Clarence Thomas. 
>> They use the exact same talking points they used back when the Dobbs decision 
>> came out.
>> 
>> There's a reason they're doing this which I'll get into a moment. But for 
>> now it's important to highlight some more unhinged responses to the Supreme 
>> Court’s ruling-- because you have to understand how truly, profoundly Donald 
>> Trump has broken these people. Elsewhere on MSNBC for example, a Slate 
>> columnist disclosed that he went rooting around the metadata of the Supreme 
>> Court's decision. In case you're not familiar with this process, because 
>> you're a normal person, here's what this columnist wrote on Twitter: "If you 
>> double click where it says 'JJ.' at the top, then copy and paste it, that 
>> line reads: SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. And if 
>> you do a control-F search for 'SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in part and 
>> dissenting in part', it highlights that same line."
>> 
>> In other words, if you highlight some arbitrary portion of the opinion, 
>> you'll find some evidence in the metadata that previously-- before this 
>> opinion was published-- Sonia Sotomayor may have written a dissenting 
>> opinion instead of joining the 9-0 final majority opinion. This is a 
>> discovery that could mean a clerk made a minor mistake somewhere and then 
>> corrected it before publishing, which would not be a remotely interesting 
>> development. But it could also mean that Sonia Sotomayor changed her mind at 
>> some point in the deliberations, which also would not be a remotely 
>> interesting development.
>> 
>> In any event, Slate and MSNBC found this development highly interesting. 
>> Watch as the Slate columnist breathlessly informs viewers of his findings 
>> deep in the metadata of the court's opinion:
>> 
>> @mjs_DC explains how metadata suggests that the concurring opinion 
>> by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson in the Supreme Court ruling 
>> on Trump's ballot eligibility might have initially been a dissent. 
>> pic.twitter.com/SsJGdB3Aoc
>> 
>> --MSNBC Reports (@MSNBC_reports) March 4, 2024
>> 
>> If you listen carefully to what the Slate guy is saying, you'll notice that 
>> he has no proof whatsoever for any of it. He doesn't actually know that this 
>> change in the opinion was made "late in the process". He doesn't really know 
>> why the metadata says that Sotomayor was dissenting. It's just speculation. 
>> And the point of it is to avoid informing viewers that actually, all of the 
>> experts you've heard on MSNBC for the past three months have been lying to 
>> you. Not even Sonia Sotomayor or Ketanji Brown Jackson or Amy Coney Barrett 
>> agree with them. That's the last thing they want you to think about.
>> 
>> The New York Times also went into histrionics for the same reason. They 
>> published an op-ed claiming that the Supreme Court had just "erased part of 
>> the Constitution". They find it easier to make embarrassing, emotional claims 
>> than to address, in any way, all of the B.S. they've been peddling about this 
>> case. For people who pretend to care so much about "misinformation", it's 
>> striking.
>> 
>> The fact none of these media organizations is reflecting on this failure 
>> tells us a lot about what they're planning. Just like we saw during 
>> Russiagate, they're not going to acknowledge their mistakes. They're not 
>> going to give up on their goal of removing the leading presidential candidate 
>> from the ballot-- all in the name of "defending democracy". Instead, their 
>> plan is simply to adapt and find new ways to undermine the will of tens of 
>> millions of American voters. 
>> 
>> It's important to emphasize here that four justices-- Sotomayor, Kagan, 
>> Jackson, and the supposedly conservative Barrett-- tried their hardest to
>> preserve this possibility in yesterday's ruling. They all suggested that,
>> while states can't bar Trump from the ballot, there might be a way for the
>> federal government to do it without an act of Congress.
>> 
>> What does that mean, exactly? That's not clear. Amy Coney Barrett won't tell 
>> us. Maybe soon enough, we'll find out.
>> 
>> Until then, congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland has made it very clear that 
>> Democrats will press forward with an effort to disqualify Trump using an act 
>> of Congress. In response to the Supreme Court's ruling-- which held that only 
>> Congress, rather than states, can disqualify federal officeholders for 
>> insurrection-- Raskin went on television to announce that Democrats in 
>> Congress will indeed do everything they can to disqualify Donald Trump from 
>> the ballot.
>> 
>> Rep. Jamie Raskin reveals he is working with Debbie Wasserman 
>> Schultz, Eric Swalwell, and other Democrats to pass a bill aimed 
>> at removing the leading Republican presidential candidate from 
>> the ballot.
>> 
>> Is this "defending democracy" & "fighting fascism"?
>> pic.twitter.com/OgVBx9aAAY
>> 
>> --KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) March 4, 2024
>> 
>> This is the same threat that Democrats made after the Supreme Court 
>> overturned Roe v. Wade. The thought of giving up never crosses their minds. 
>> The thought of allowing voters in each of the 50 states to make their own 
>> decisions-- whether it's about abortion, or presidential candidates-- never 
>> crosses their minds, either.
>> 
>> If you page through the Washington Post's comments section, you'll see that 
>> very clearly. Millions of left-wing voters want Jamie Raskin to pass his 
>> bill and forcibly remove Donald Trump from the ballot. And they have some 
>> very high-level support. As the podcaster Comfortably Smug pointed out the 
>> other day, "Left-wing dark money groups like Fix The Court are focused on 
>> packing the court and their former director now works for the Biden 
>> campaign."
>> 
>> What this means is that, as deranged as Keith Olbermann is, he's actually not 
>> an outlier on the Left. He's popular because he's willing to say what they're 
>> thinking. He is the face of all their worst impulses and ideas. And they are 
>> so committed to winning-- so committed to preventing you from voting-- that 
>> they truly don't care whether that face is drenched in urine or not.
> 



-- 
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2796

On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 10:35:34 -0800, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>Giuliani is another example. When he was mayor of New York, he cleaned 
>up a city that had been wallowing in crime and decay for decades and he 
>did it in record time. And he saw the city through 9-11 in an exemplary 
>way. He's probably the best example of a big-city mayor in our lifetime. 
>Then he became a Trump insider and he went nuts. Now he's a gibbering 
>ghost of his former self who no one takes seriously and *that* will be 
>his legacy, not his accomplishments as mayor.
>
I wish you were wrong - but you're not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#2797

On 3/6/24 12:35 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <usa6bk$gogq$5@dont-email.me>,
>   Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
> 
>>  From the moment the Colorado Supreme Court disqualified Donald Trump from the
>> ballot a few months ago, it was obvious that their decision would be
>> overturned. As I discussed on this show at the time, there were so many flaws
>> with the opinion, it was difficult to know where to begin. The decision
>> ignored Donald Trump's calls for peaceful demonstration on January 6th. It
>> accused him of speaking in violent coded language because he was mean to some
>> random protesters at his rallies. And then it concluded that a single
>> Colorado bureaucrat had the power to effectively delete his entire candidacy.
>> It’s not worth rehashing all of the details. This was a decision that any
>> reasonably informed person knew was going to be overturned.
>>
>> Unfortunately, what's become very clear in the past 24 hours is that a very
>> large number of people in this country are not reasonably informed. Instead,
>> they're told to pay attention when Rachel Maddow beams into MSNBC to tell
>> viewers that Donald Trump might soon be barred from the ballot in multiple
>> states. They're bombarded with junk "analysis", like CNN's assessment that
>> the legal case for kicking Trump off the ballot was strong. And they're fed
>> think-pieces from buffoons like Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, who
>> called the Colorado Supreme Court's decision "unassailable".
>>
>> Think about that for a second. You can get a more accurate assessment of
>> constitutional law issues from a conservative podcast than you can from an
>> esteemed Harvard Law professor who supposedly specializes in Constitutional
>> Law.
> 
> Tribe used to be quite good. He always leaned a little left in his
> analyses but they were always well grounded in both history and law.
> 
> Then Trump got elected and I swear it broke something in him. He's been
> a raving lunatic ever since.
> 
> Giuliani is another example. When he was mayor of New York, he cleaned
> up a city that had been wallowing in crime and decay for decades and he
> did it in record time. And he saw the city through 9-11 in an exemplary
> way. He's probably the best example of a big-city mayor in our lifetime.
> Then he became a Trump insider and he went nuts. Now he's a gibbering
> ghost of his former self who no one takes seriously and *that* will be
> his legacy, not his accomplishments as mayor.
> 
>> I'll begin with Keith Olbermann
> 
> Mr. Piss Tears himself! Crowder did a whole segment on the guy and his
> "urine tears" that was both hilarious and devastating. One can only
> imagine Olbermann listening to it in his dank basement screaming "I know
> you are but what am I?!?"
> 
> (The bit was made perfect by Crowder's excellent vocal impression of
> Olbermann. Never knew the guy was so talented.)


Olbermann made a name for himself in the world of sports.  Do you have 
some reason why you find him necessary to listen to in other areas?  Be 
as specific as possible please.



>> who was so worked up in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision that
>> he apparently admitted to having urine all over his face. This is not an
>> exaggeration, although I-- and everyone else who happened to be using
>> Twitter yesterday-- very much wishes it were. Here's how Keith's day began.
>> He tweeted,"The Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members including
>> Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading
>> comprehension. And collectively the 'court' has shown itself to be corrupt
>> and illegitimate. It must be dissolved."
> 
> Olbermann never bothered explaining how that's supposed to happen, since
> there's no provision in the Constitution for dissolving the Supreme
> Court. Which means any attempt to do so would be... wait for it... an
> insurrection. Which I'm reliably informed is a bad thing that we should
> avoid.
> 
> I guess leftist insurrections are somehow 'different', as per usual.
> 
>> So we're not packing the court anymore. We're just going to get rid of the
>> whole thing, according to Olbermann. In response, someone helpfully pointed
>> out that the Supreme Court's decision was unanimous: "Cry more... 9-0."
>>
>> Olbermann, reading this, announced: "Those aren't tears, Fascist. They're
>> urine. I'm sure you enjoy being bathed in it."
>>
>> At best, that is the single worst comeback you could possibly imagine in that
>> circumstance. At worst, it's an admission of exactly the kind of deviant
>> behavior you'd expect Olbermann would engage in all of the time. (Although we
>> can't be sure if Olbermann pees on his own face or if someone else does it.)
>> There are many details left obscured here and probably for the best.
>>
>> As distressing as these thoughts may be, the truth is that Olbermann isn't
>> alone on the Left. In response to yesterday's decision, Colorado Secretary of
>> State Jena Griswold-- the woman who unilaterally tried to have Trump thrown
>> off the ballot-- also began attacking the Supreme Court.
> 
>> Just to restate how absurd this is-- the Supreme Court's decision was
>> unanimous. It was a 9-0 vote, overturning what this secretary of state did.
>> And instead of grappling with the implications of that, both the interviewer
>> and the woman with the crazy eyes (Griswold) pretend as though this was a
>> partisan decision. That's how the question was framed and it's how Griswold
>> responds. She goes off into some bizarre discussion about Clarence Thomas.
>> They use the exact same talking points they used back when the Dobbs decision
>> came out.
>>
>> There's a reason they're doing this which I'll get into a moment. But for
>> now it's important to highlight some more unhinged responses to the Supreme
>> Court’s ruling-- because you have to understand how truly, profoundly Donald
>> Trump has broken these people. Elsewhere on MSNBC for example, a Slate
>> columnist disclosed that he went rooting around the metadata of the Supreme
>> Court's decision. In case you're not familiar with this process, because
>> you're a normal person, here's what this columnist wrote on Twitter: "If you
>> double click where it says 'JJ.' at the top, then copy and paste it, that
>> line reads: SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. And if
>> you do a control-F search for 'SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in part and
>> dissenting in part', it highlights that same line."
>>
>> In other words, if you highlight some arbitrary portion of the opinion,
>> you'll find some evidence in the metadata that previously-- before this
>> opinion was published-- Sonia Sotomayor may have written a dissenting
>> opinion instead of joining the 9-0 final majority opinion. This is a
>> discovery that could mean a clerk made a minor mistake somewhere and then
>> corrected it before publishing, which would not be a remotely interesting
>> development. But it could also mean that Sonia Sotomayor changed her mind at
>> some point in the deliberations, which also would not be a remotely
>> interesting development.
>>
>> In any event, Slate and MSNBC found this development highly interesting.
>> Watch as the Slate columnist breathlessly informs viewers of his findings
>> deep in the metadata of the court's opinion:
>>
>> 	@mjs_DC explains how metadata suggests that the concurring opinion
>> 	by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson in the Supreme Court ruling
>> 	on Trump's ballot eligibility might have initially been a dissent.
>> 	pic.twitter.com/SsJGdB3Aoc
>>
>> 	--MSNBC Reports (@MSNBC_reports) March 4, 2024
>>
>> If you listen carefully to what the Slate guy is saying, you'll notice that
>> he has no proof whatsoever for any of it. He doesn't actually know that this
>> change in the opinion was made "late in the process". He doesn't really know
>> why the metadata says that Sotomayor was dissenting. It's just speculation.
>> And the point of it is to avoid informing viewers that actually, all of the
>> experts you've heard on MSNBC for the past three months have been lying to
>> you. Not even Sonia Sotomayor or Ketanji Brown Jackson or Amy Coney Barrett
>> agree with them. That's the last thing they want you to think about.
>>
>> The New York Times also went into histrionics for the same reason. They
>> published an op-ed claiming that the Supreme Court had just "erased part of
>> the Constitution". They find it easier to make embarrassing, emotional claims
>> than to address, in any way, all of the B.S. they've been peddling about this
>> case. For people who pretend to care so much about "misinformation", it's
>> striking.
>>
>> The fact none of these media organizations is reflecting on this failure
>> tells us a lot about what they're planning. Just like we saw during
>> Russiagate, they're not going to acknowledge their mistakes. They're not
>> going to give up on their goal of removing the leading presidential candidate
>> from the ballot-- all in the name of "defending democracy". Instead, their
>> plan is simply to adapt and find new ways to undermine the will of tens of
>> millions of American voters.
>>
>> It's important to emphasize here that four justices-- Sotomayor, Kagan,
>> Jackson, and the supposedly conservative Barrett-- tried their hardest to
>> preserve this possibility in yesterday's ruling. They all suggested that,
>> while states can't bar Trump from the ballot, there might be a way for the
>> federal government to do it without an act of Congress.
>>
>> What does that mean, exactly? That's not clear. Amy Coney Barrett won't tell
>> us. Maybe soon enough, we'll find out.
>>
>> Until then, congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland has made it very clear that
>> Democrats will press forward with an effort to disqualify Trump using an act
>> of Congress. In response to the Supreme Court's ruling-- which held that only
>> Congress, rather than states, can disqualify federal officeholders for
>> insurrection-- Raskin went on television to announce that Democrats in
>> Congress will indeed do everything they can to disqualify Donald Trump from
>> the ballot.
>>
>> 	Rep. Jamie Raskin reveals he is working with Debbie Wasserman
>> 	Schultz, Eric Swalwell, and other Democrats to pass a bill aimed
>> 	at removing the leading Republican presidential candidate from
>> 	the ballot.
>>
>> 	Is this "defending democracy" & "fighting fascism"?
>> 	pic.twitter.com/OgVBx9aAAY
>>
>> 	--KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) March 4, 2024
>>
>> This is the same threat that Democrats made after the Supreme Court
>> overturned Roe v. Wade. The thought of giving up never crosses their minds.
>> The thought of allowing voters in each of the 50 states to make their own
>> decisions-- whether it's about abortion, or presidential candidates-- never
>> crosses their minds, either.
>>
>> If you page through the Washington Post's comments section, you'll see that
>> very clearly. Millions of left-wing voters want Jamie Raskin to pass his
>> bill and forcibly remove Donald Trump from the ballot. And they have some
>> very high-level support. As the podcaster Comfortably Smug pointed out the
>> other day, "Left-wing dark money groups like Fix The Court are focused on
>> packing the court and their former director now works for the Biden
>> campaign."
>>
>> What this means is that, as deranged as Keith Olbermann is, he's actually not
>> an outlier on the Left. He's popular because he's willing to say what they're
>> thinking. He is the face of all their worst impulses and ideas. And they are
>> so committed to winning-- so committed to preventing you from voting-- that
>> they truly don't care whether that face is drenched in urine or not.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.tv.keith-olbermann

csiph-web