Your examples do absolutely nothing to disprove a one-sided lawfare hypothesis so why should I grant you that point?
calling state officials to pull votes for you out of thin air
This is an extremely motivated reading of that phone call, especially with more recent revelations on the election in Georgia. Gotta be honest, it’s making me doubt your commitment to even-handed lawfare.
it's the same sort of thing that regularly happens in third world countries. Hell it's happening in Venezuela right now.
Prosecuting your political opponents? You’re right! The political valence is even the same!
ETA: I’ll grant you Al Franken in the sense that the democrats definitely did not have to get rid of him. My opinion is that they only did because it was peak #MeToo and their hand was forced by the appearance of hypocrisy and their extreme left faction. (It doesn’t hurt that MN is relatively safely blue.) Note that in the years since many people involved in his resignation have publicly come to regret it. Regardless, it definitionally wasn’t lawfare since he faced no charges.
Barron2024
1mo ago
I don't have near as much a problem with it as you seem to.
Exactly! Because you know your side will never actually face consequences!
Surely you can see there is an enormous qualitative difference between democrats ejecting an unpopular democrat in a safe-D state and democrats digging through the couch cushions and charging the opposing presidential candidate with whatever novel legal theories they can find?
Barron2024
1mo ago
Warships are launching SSM interceptors to strike threats 20 to 40NM away, not 1-5NM. At closer ranges EW nukes all command guidance
They’ll happily launch million dollar ESSMs, RAMs, and Nulkas at closer ranges, see the USS Mason. The US Navy is pretty far behind the Air Force in operational EW, I suspect it will be a long while before any captain entrusts EW with incoming threats over lobbing $10M in physical ordnance.
Barron2024
1mo ago
"No lawfare" is just corruption, because every public figure is partisan. Was Bob Menendez (D-NJ) a victim of lawfare when he was convicted of 16 counts of bribery? He has a D next to his name! George Santos? Michael Flynn? "Lawfare" absent any hard evidence of the motives of the prosecutors is little more than the idea that anyone you like can't be accused of a crime.
You’re right. It is corruption. One-sided lawfare is also corruption, and of a more dangerous kind.
Bob Menendez will be replaced by another guy with a D next to his name so absolutely nothing was lost by the democrats. The occasional no-stakes sacrifice isn’t fooling anyone, especially when it took two decades for consequences.
I'd also argue the right does know what lawfare is. What do you think all those people chanting "Lock her up!" were calling for?
They wanted lawfare. Your rules applied fairly and all that.
Barron2024
1mo ago
I’d just like you to not act as though your personal desire for fairness in lawfare means anything to those of us on the right. No lawfare is much preferred over one-sided lawfare.
Barron2024
1mo ago
If Republicans want to engage in "lawfare" against Democrats by punishing them for things they are guilty of, great!
This is so easy to say when you know it will never come to pass.
Barron2024
2mo ago
They're going to forget about the then-current President of the United States?
Well, they’ve forgotten about the now-current President of the United States.
Barron2024
3mo ago
Yeah I’m not defending Baltimore by any means but the white L is similar to most other American cities (that is to say kind of crappy and trending worse, but you probably won’t die). The inner harbor is part of the L, but being the tourist center of the city is a favorite homeless/beggar area.
The whole white L isn’t too bad, especially if you don’t live in Baltimore and aren’t paying the taxes and car insurance.
Barron2024
3mo ago
I have yet to find a decent pizza place.
Ever try Paulie Gee’s in Hampden? It’s expensive and full of whatever hipsters are called these days, but good pizza IMO.
But yeah, Baltimore is a shithole. My car insurance was cut in half when I left, and I haven’t actually calculated my local taxes but I assume they were slashed upon leaving as well.
Barron2024
3mo ago
This would be more compelling if the lawyerly liars actually demonstrated competence. Unfortunately, they rarely do.
Barron2024
8mo ago
Once the federal government starts aggressively deporting anyone not appearing in court, not submitting their (almost unanimously bullshit) asylum claims on time, or committing other crimes I may believe their stated motivations. Until then I will assume that any “bipartisan” legislation is just more words with which to wage lawfare against US citizens.
Barron2024
8mo ago
How about zero? The “cap” means nothing. Why not “cap” murders, assaults, or burglaries? Enforce the damn law.
Barron2024
8mo ago
Biden was willing to give concessions on immigration by signing the most conservative immigration bill in a generation, something Republicans were on board with
Explicitly allowing 5,000 illegals per day is neither a concession nor conservative. The fact that Republicans were on board with that even for a second is just evidence that the Republican Party is useless and not conservative.
Barron2024
1yr ago
a mob invading the seat of government
This happens routinely. Hell, it happened yesterday. For some reason it doesn’t seem important to the powers that be.
Barron2024
1yr ago
These people don’t literally believe blacks are magic
Not to be snarky, but are we sure of this?
There does seem to be a lot of magical thinking applied to not just black people but “diversity”. It’s taken for granted that without black people (slavery), America wouldn’t even exist. (“Slaves built America.”) Just look at the purported benefits of diversity. Without diversity we wouldn’t have creativity, innovation, social cohesion, social justice, or equity.
It’s hard to square these claims with reality in any realistic, non-magical way.
Barron2024
1yr ago
I'm also willing to entertain the notion that Bowman is just a dumbass who was in a rush (option 2), rather than a man intent on undermining American democracy (option 3).
I agree with you. I’m sorry it sounds like I’m trolling. gattsuru has worded the point better than I can, though he can laugh at the double standard while I find it profoundly black-pilling. There’s nothing more depressing than a one-sided “justice system”. This fire alarm situation will soon be memory-holed and Bowman will face zero consequences. Meanwhile there are peaceful protestors facing 20 years in prison and the only difference is their politics. I’d like to be principled and treat Bowman as an idiot that made an accident, but that’s suicidal at this point.
Barron2024
1yr ago
The discussion isn't about whether or not he set off the fire alarm (he clearly did) but whether he did it with the intent
The obviousness of it being a fire alarm speaks to intent, I would think. Unless the defense is "I'm a huge idiot who doesn't know what a fire alarm is". If it was some special gold-plated Capitol Hill fire alarm variant I could believe it was unintentional. But it is a totally standard fire alarm you'd see all over the country.
As to the rest of your post, the real issue here is that only the left receives this much charity from the legal system and the mainstream media.
Barron2024
1yr ago
On twitter I saw this image
You can also see the fire alarm in that image. It's bright red and says "FIRE".
The building that was evacuated was the Canon Hill building across the street, not the Capitol building where the vote occurred. If he wanted to prevent a vote wouldn't it make more sense to pull the alarm in the Capitol building itself?
This is no doubt evidence that could be brought up, however it would also make logical sense to me that the whole Hill would be evacuated/go into lockdown in the event of an unplanned fire alarm in one of the complex's buildings.
The bill was passed with near-unanimous Democrat support, including from Bowman. Not to mention that Democrats have absolutely no interest in a government shutdown with a Democratic president in charge. Why would a Democratic congressman want to obstruct the voting on a bill he is in favor of?
I read somewhere (I don't remember where), that the motive could have been to buy time to actually read the bill. Which, honestly, is a great motive. I'd be in favor of multiple hours-long fire drills so that they would actually read every stupid 2000-page bill they put up for a vote. However I don't expect Bowman to be pulling the fire alarm next time the Democrats try to quickly ram through a bill.
Barron2024
1yr ago
innocent mistake
I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
your opponents can also hold you to this new standard
They already are.
He may be compelled to resign.
I would be surprised by this outcome, but it is a reasonable one. I don't actually think he should be in jail for 20 years. Just like I don't think J6 defendants should be in jail for 20 years.
Barron2024
1yr ago
How does “obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so” not apply? I see no reference to trespassing.
Though it does say they can be fined, imprisoned for up to 20 years, or both. You’re probably right that they’ll fine him $20 and call it a day. Such an equitable justice system we have.
It wouldn’t be so blatant if they didn’t pre-announce the race and sex of their appointees. Even just the plausible deniability of not doing that would improve the optics.
Immediately narrowing the universe of candidates based on race and sex is definitionally racist and sexist.
The “political legitimacy” of the racial spoils system of South Africa surely provides much comfort to its citizens.
Barron2024
1yr ago
The only reason for doling out political appointments based on race, sex, etc. is “racism/sexism/etcism is good, actually”.
I do find it hard to give any charity to that view, I will admit.
My rules fairly > your rules fairly > my rules unfairly > your rules unfairly.
We are currently in “your rules unfairly”, and you’re right that I would prefer my rules unfairly over your rules unfairly.
I don’t necessarily want to call you a liar, because I believe that you would prefer yours rules fairly over your rules unfairly. But given that you won’t acknowledge that we are in the your rules unfairly stage we are at an impasse.
Engaging in lawfare against your presidential opponent is simply a significantly larger break in norms than any example you or anyone else can muster. And while you can say “it’s all good, come after my candidate too!” until you’re blue in the face, we both know that it will never happen due to many structural reasons cited elsewhere in this thread, so it rings incredibly hollow.
More options
Context Copy link