Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Democrats Are a Threat to Our Constitution
Biden set up a committee to consider court-packing. A new more sinister form of it emerged in the last week with the threat to murder Justice Kavanaugh.
Other Supreme Court justices have been threatened and the Biden administration has said nothing about it. The Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer threatened Kavanaugh and his colleagues said nothing. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has blocked a bill to provide security for Supreme Court justices.
We face an existential crisis. The assassination of a Justice would be far worse than the caning of Senator Sumner by Representative Brooks. But our leaders are mute. An insurrection is brewing but they don’t care because they can’t blame it on Trump.
Published in Law
Slanderer.
“Liar” works.
Unfortunately, if you call a liar a liar you get redacted. You can’t even call him a banana.
Lying liar who lies?
Re-education camp, where they “teach you” that he lied. Until you get it right.
Gary isn’t lying, guys.
Are you sure? I keep hearing about a Big Lie.
Some things Trump said weren’t true. He believed them, so he wasn’t lying when he said them.
Some things Gary says aren’t true. He believes them, so he isn’t lying when he says them.
Except when shown to be untrue, repeating them anyway then becomes lying.
Wow. I am going to have to think about this.
I want to quickly address the issue of fraud and the courts. Benjamin Ginsberg is the leading Republican election lawyer. His 8 minute clip on the second day of the January 6th Committee hearing is overwhelming.
I got to five minutes before I was disgusted. The 60 cases lie again. You can’t prove a case if you never get a hearing. Duh!
How many times did we see actual videos of GOP poll watchers being kept at a distance, or of windows being blocked with cardboard so no one could actually see what was happening? This guy didn’t mention that at all. I’ll believe my lying eyes instead of him.
How many were refused for “no standing” or “untimely”?
In other words, they weren’t “lost,” they were never HEARD.
Not when a mental block prevents the comprehension of the demonstration of the untruth.
“Trump campaign did not make its case in court”?
If that is the conclusion, it is pretty much by definition profoundly underwhelming in the face of the evidence I have jotted down. It’s not quite even on the same topic.
I can accept that some people can be lying even if they don’t understand it themselves. The stakes are too high to tolerate false statements from people who should know better, but refuse to.
Sure, if lying to oneself is the first step in a lie. I’m ok with that description.
The first step is, was the Trump campaign ALLOWED TO make its case in court? “Did not make its case” is at best a half-truth.
No, I think he knows, he just thinks he’s justified.
It is interesting if you have ever personally experienced “denial”. It is not that you consciously decide to refuse to believe something. It is completely different. You just don’t see the obvious. If someone forces you to see it, your first response is anger. If you are an adult, that passes quickly and you say to yourself, “So that’s what denial means.”
Yes, I speak from experience, but don’t care to say more.
That’s one option, another is if – say – you tell someone they’re wrong about something, and they should look it up. But they refuse to look it up, so they can continue to say what they’ve been saying without “knowing” that it’s false, and hence they can claim “not a lie.”
What you all are saying is that he is not mentally fit to know the truth, even when it’s explained to him. That’s a pretty big deal to assert. I think he knows and doesn’t care to tell the truth. It’s a much punier failing.
None of us is mentally fit to know all truths. That doesn’t seem like a big deal to me.
That’s possible. But I think something in being a lawyer allows for not letting the truth in, so you can continue to say what you want and claim it’s not “lying.” Perhaps especially because [standard response the mods have told me to stop using].
I guess I might as well respond in general. No one is saying that people have to know the nature of the soul, or the exact mass of the universe, or anything like that. No one is saying anyone should know all truths. But there are some truths that are reasonably provable.
Stipulating for civility’s sake that someone is simply inclined to be less than candid is less insulting than saying that someone is mentally or emotionally incapable of discerning the truth.
Yes, and I doubt any of us know all of them.
Well, I’d certainly rather be called a person with a mental block or a blind spot than a liar.
But in this case I’m not entirely sure I even care what’s more insulting. I do care what’s true.
So you’re saying that because you can’t know all of them, that you can’t know 20 of them.
I’m pretty sure I’m saying nothing of the sort. What are you talking about? That’s one thing I don’t know.
It’s not important.
I’m pretty sure the Nevers understand this, but their programming is hardwired and cannot be overwritten.
You seem to forget Samuel Tilden