Hello u/ddx-me! Please reply to this comment with an explanation matching this exact format. Replace bold text with the appropriate information.
Someone voted for, supported or wanted to impose something on other people.
Who's that someone? What did they voted for, supported or wanted to impose? On who?
Something has the consequences of consequences.
Does that something actually has these consequences in general?
As a consequence of something, consequences happened to someone.
Did that something really happen to that someone?
Follow this by the minimum amount of information necessary so your post can be understood by everyone, even if they don't live in the US or speak English as their native language. If you fail to match this format or fail to answer these questions, your post will be removed.
For other users, does this post fit the subreddit?
If so, upvote this comment!
Otherwise, downvote this comment!
And if it does break the rules, downvote this comment and report this post!
Judge Lopez was incredibly lenient in his judgements during bankruptcy. Alex should have ended up penniless and in jail for hiding assets, lying, money laundering, and general malfeasance during the case. Instead, he's still living high on the hog with plenty of money, luxury vacations, cars, and a pile of properties to his name while the plaintiffs will likely never be paid their judgement.
I've listened to Knowledge Fight for a decade, which means I've listened to more Alex Jones than most people on the right. Alex Jones never changes, his shit content is still shit. It might be a bigger, smellier shit, but it's still shit.
Also, how do you continue to listen to him after what he did to the Sandy Hook parents? Your morals are all fucked.
That part was the plaintiffs' lawyers' fault for pleading their case poorly and on Texas Republicans for neutering the state's liability laws. The part where Alex was allowed to get away with fraud, hiding assets, lying to the court, and still allowed to live high on the hog is Judge Lopez's fault.
I think what they're trying to say is it's a No True Scotsman issue. If you were to pool together everything everyone who says they're Christian believes disqualifies someone from being Christian, them absolutely no one in the world is a Christian. You can believe they aren't Christian and make arguments in support of that belief, but they believe you aren't Christian and make arguments in support of that. What this or that part of the Bible or Gnostic Gospels or abrahamic folklore or whatever else you do or don't consider part of your definition of Christian, it's still completely subjective. Maybe it's not rational or more justified, but there's no objective definition of Christian. Anyone who calls themselves a Christian is a Christian, otherwise absolutely no one has ever been a Christian.
Respectfully I’m not here to hold water for Christianity. I know full well the point they’re making. I also know that proving what was meant is an impossible bar to meet set here as a bad faith argument.
MY point is that there’s a single salient lesson in that book that certain Christians, mostly evangelical denominations and tradcaths, seem intent on ignoring and finding exceptions to.
The Christianity I know is about compassion and tolerance, not about hating people because they weren’t born in this country or because they decided to change genders. So you might be right, it is the version of Christianity I favor.
Ah yes, the tolerance and compassion of "Abandon your own family if they don't worship me." And of "My religion is the only correct one; go convert everyone." And of calling members of different races dogs.
Oh, remember that time he insulted a woman for cooking the meal he was expecting to eat that night instead of sitting around listening to him talk? Very tolerant and compassionate.
Need I continue? I can.
Also, let's not pretend Jesus had any concept of changing one's gender. It's pretty easy to not hate someone for something you have no idea exists.
I’m not even Christian, but around where I live there are plenty of Christian churches with LGBTQ+ flags at their entrances. That’s the version of Christianity I support. I’m not going to defend the bible, I don’t care to either. I care about basic values like I said above, and if religion gives that to you, good. Im no edgy atheist that’s going to criticize people for believing something I don’t, especially when that something makes them better human beings.
Other than the bible itself condemning cherry-picking?
At least be honest about it instead of believing what you want, deciding that because you're right it's obviously what jesus wanted and then expecting others to go along with your decisions and attacking us when we don't.
You know how people say Charlie Kirk was a adamant defender of Free speech and that he would defend your right to speak anytime anywhere and he would tell you his truth anytime, anywhere...
It's quite telling that the one time he had to tell the truth he shut his mouth hard and took the fifth 35 times, oddly enough that too was on advice of counsel.
Can Democrats stop with this "when they go low we go high" bullshit? They should be suing these liars into oblivion, stop letting them get away with blatenly lying and spreading falsehoods. Start standing up!
Because there's a decent amount of those who were pissed off that Crockett lost the primary and are refusing to back Talarico.
Meanwhile, there are Corryn voters who despite not liking Paxton, will still vote for him.
The primary numbers showed that there were more votes on the Dem primary in TX than there were on the Rep primary.
Yeah, I think Dems this cycle have finally moved past the mentality that it's possible to beat Republicans without getting down into the mud. You can really see that if you watch Ossoff's debates against Collins. It also becomes clear why people are becoming increasingly convinced that Ossoff is a good choice for a future president.
And it shouldn't be that hard. Get a lawyer to work on retainer, even if it's a steep cut, and hand off the work to them. Costs you very little and it won't even go to court anytime soon, so it's not going to impact the election.
Right? Youre telling me the DNC cant afford a team of lawyers on retainer whose whole job is to go after people who libel or defame their members and candidates?
The Democratic National Committee is broke and is literally, mostly just volunteer staffers from around the country, whose remit is to help campaign organizing and fundraising in election years. It has slightly more power when there's actually a Democratic president around to control it, but when Dems are out of power donor money tends to go directly to candidates.
The DNC has never had the authority, control, or power some on the left want to believe it does. It certainly has no legal standing to sue on behalf of candidates.
The DNC would be more powerful and certainly richer if they had not actively thwarted the will of the people by fiddling with the nomination process in the 2016 election. Seems to me they put their goal posts on roller skates and made up rules as they went along to 'guide' the process to their already selected candidate. Did the same fuckin' thing in 2024.
Maybe the DNC should let Democrats pick their own candidate for '28? Can't hurt - well maybe it will hurt the oligarchs who own them, but they'll get over it.
They didn't "thwart the will of the people". The will of the people was shown in the candidate that got millions more votes getting the nomination. The DNC, again, does not have the power to control how millions of people vote.
Hillary won the 2016 nomination fair and square by millions of votes, because she was more popular than Bernie with the core, loyal partisans who dominate primaries.
Some cannot understand that, because white Americans left and right are raised to be arrogant, entitled, and think they're always supposed to get their way like at mommy and daddy's house. The Berniebro left should be embarrassed to have provided Trump the election denial blueprint, falsely crying rigged because they think a win fueled by by black and minority demographics is de facto illegitimate.
The rules in 2016 were the same rules that had always been there. Nothing was changed mid-primary; it's not even possible to do so. Nobody had a problem with rules until white voter preference lost. Just like they gutted the Voting Rights Act after Obama won, and passed a bunch of voter suppression laws after Biden won.
Maybe old men should "get over it" when they lose by millions of votes, instead of throwing election denial tantrums aka "I think because I'm white I'm always supposed to get what I want."
No they don’t. They didn’t like Bernie personally, but that’s true of a lot of people. They still ran a straight contest. Bernie did well in caucuses which were attended by a narrower range of people than the primaries that favored HRC — Bernie received fewer votes than his opponent. The process was just as "rigged" as the 2020 general.
More people need to be shown and experience the full consequences of their actions. No more settlements. You break the law? You need to defend yourself against actions in your name.
Never mind the legal consequences, when are these evangelicals going to learn not to bear false witness against their neighbors. Don't they realize they are breaking God's commandments and may end up in hell?
What would that interview sound like?
"Why did you lie?"
"What motivated you to pick that lie?"
"Does you mother know you lie as you job?"
"Do you lie to your partner, too?"
I'm so fucking tired of conservative lies. I couldn't distain them or their voters more than I already do. Every day they add more bullshit to the world and they just slurp it up.
Even if this was true, what is the problem with this? Oh you went to a hospital, we shouldn't vote for you. If your standard is integrity and honesty but you support Paxton, then lol
lol 😂 they all worried about this guy’s health but they have that evil cripple that could literally crack in half at any moment due to old age for a governor…..
This guy should go against the advice of counsel and go on any and every news outlet/organization that will have him. Really, what's the worst that can happen?
Attorneys can't give orders. Judges give orders. I'm not sure what this tweet is trying to say, has this guy retained counsel and is acting under their advisement or is there a court order for something?
Well that's what I'm asking and I'd rather not presume. Does anyone have an actual answer? Kind of an important distinction in the context of legal consequences.
No, a legal order is a distinct, defined thing. They used the word order in a legal context-- did they mean a legal order and misattributed it, or did they mean direction and used the wrong word?
Neither of these is obvious and I don't understand why you're so set on arguing about it when you don't have an answer.
Yeah, no shit. Use logic. If the article - which I will point out, is not a legal statement - uses that term, and it is not possible for a mere attorney to issue a judicial order - they obviously used an imprecise term that carries meaning for the casual reader.
It isn't complicated and you have all the evidence you need. You already stated an attorney can't give an order. The article says the attorney 'ordered' him to stay quiet. What conclusion do you draw? If you can think logically you would land on 'ordered = advised.'
There's your extremely obvious answer. Think about it.
Because it seems pretty obvious by context since they said attorney and with no news of actual legal action but if it makes you feel better here's how huffpost worded it:
"Rhein Amacher dodged an interview, claiming he was told by a lawyer not to participate for fear of getting in legal "hot water." One of the right-wing posters who pushed the debunked James Talarico mental-health hoax is now shying away from the spotlight, claiming he’s worried about getting into “legal hot water.”
Journalist Jesse Singal posted on X Tuesday that he’d been set to interview Rhein Amacher, who, alongside “independent journalist” Nick Sortor, claimed to have uncovered evidence the Democratic Senate candidate had been discharged from a mental health clinic in Ohio. But Amacher pulled out of the interview, Singal said, citing a conversation with his attorney who’d given him a “stand down order” and urged him not to appear on podcasts or give interviews."
•
u/qualityvote2 4h ago
Hello u/ddx-me! Please reply to this comment with an explanation matching this exact format. Replace bold text with the appropriate information.
Follow this by the minimum amount of information necessary so your post can be understood by everyone, even if they don't live in the US or speak English as their native language. If you fail to match this format or fail to answer these questions, your post will be removed.
For other users, does this post fit the subreddit?
If so, upvote this comment!
Otherwise, downvote this comment!
And if it does break the rules, downvote this comment and report this post!