Biden DOJ arrest guy who posted voting meme in 2016.
Comments
-
Is tricking the ignorant and gullible into not exercising their votes protected speech?
I don't think the First Amendment is your best argument here. -
Well that does describe democrat voters but its not against the law anymore than it is for Biden to claim he had a covid planHHusky said:Is tricking the ignorant and gullible into not exercising their votes protected speech?
I don't think the First Amendment is your best argument here. -
The actually closed the local county courts here in California on Jan. 20th with the excuse being that there were threats being made to the workers. When the reality was that it was just an excuse to give state workers another paid holiday.NorthwestFresh said:
Where is this happening? Not here.TheKobeStopper said:
I’m mostly seeing complaints from Trump voters that are mad his coup failed.NorthwestFresh said:
I already know you support his authoritarianism and also fascist prosecutions of political enemies.TheKobeStopper said:NorthwestFresh said:
Your lust for Fascism is noted. Society made laws against yelling fire. It’s called will of the people.TheKobeStopper said:So the joke is to deliberately disseminate misinformation to deprive individuals of their constitutional right to vote. Hilarious.
If I yell fire in a crowded room and you’re dumb enough to think there’s a fire, that’s your fault.
If I steal from you and you’re dumb enough to let me, that’s your fault.
Why have laws at all? Just rub some personal responsibility on it.
I must have missed the mass movement to prosecute people for making memes.
This is an example being made of someone. A political prosecution to stifle dissent. Just like arresting Brandon Straka for protesting outside the Capitol.
You support and are excusing everything you claim to be against and you don’t even know it. It’s because you’re not very bright. A perfect Useful Idiot who is a political tribalist.
The will of the people.
Many others feel who voted for him feel lied to, as they should.
Calling that a coup and making DC a military stats now is the best example of gaslighting in recent memory. I also like how the FBI spread all over the disinformation on massive right-wing armed protests at all 50 state capitols on Inauguration Day.
A complete false narrative that Leftists gobbled up as fact. -
18 U.S. Code § 241 is the law.RaceBannon said:
Well that does describe democrat voters but its not against the law anymore than it is for Biden to claim he had a covid planHHusky said:Is tricking the ignorant and gullible into not exercising their votes protected speech?
I don't think the First Amendment is your best argument here.
I agree with you that it would be smarter to argue that the statute wasn't intended to criminalize this conduct.
The First Amendment argument strikes me as a loser. -
You should knowHHusky said:
18 U.S. Code § 241 is the law.RaceBannon said:
Well that does describe democrat voters but its not against the law anymore than it is for Biden to claim he had a covid planHHusky said:Is tricking the ignorant and gullible into not exercising their votes protected speech?
I don't think the First Amendment is your best argument here.
I agree with you that it would be smarter to argue that the statute wasn't intended to criminalize this conduct.
The First Amendment argument strikes me as a loser. -
Yeah, Daddy gave Rush a medal is more the Dazzler's kind of winning argument.HHusky said:
18 U.S. Code § 241 is the law.RaceBannon said:
Well that does describe democrat voters but its not against the law anymore than it is for Biden to claim he had a covid planHHusky said:Is tricking the ignorant and gullible into not exercising their votes protected speech?
I don't think the First Amendment is your best argument here.
I agree with you that it would be smarter to argue that the statute wasn't intended to criminalize this conduct.
The First Amendment argument strikes me as a loser. -
It literally just says 'Hillary' and doesn't give a last name. It also doesn't say anything about what they're voting for, just 'president'. President of what? Not to mention it says to TEXT your vote which should make it obvious even to most children that it's not a real vote for US President. I feel no remorse for anyone who texted their vote to this number instead of filling out an actual ballot, and it seems obvious that this case will be thrown out.TheKobeStopper said:
What’s the joke? -
Imagine how disappointed those of us looking forward to your analysis of the statute are.RaceBannon said:
You should knowHHusky said:
18 U.S. Code § 241 is the law.RaceBannon said:
Well that does describe democrat voters but its not against the law anymore than it is for Biden to claim he had a covid planHHusky said:Is tricking the ignorant and gullible into not exercising their votes protected speech?
I don't think the First Amendment is your best argument here.
I agree with you that it would be smarter to argue that the statute wasn't intended to criminalize this conduct.
The First Amendment argument strikes me as a loser. -
Fender's remorse is the new test of statutory construction.Fenderbender123 said:
It literally just says 'Hillary' and doesn't give a last name. It also doesn't say anything about what they're voting for, just 'president'. President of what? Not to mention it says to TEXT your vote which should make it obvious even to most children that it's not a real vote for US President. I feel no remorse for anyone who texted their vote to this number instead of filling out an actual ballot, and it seems obvious that this case will be thrown out.TheKobeStopper said:
What’s the joke? -
So nothing. Again.SFGbob said:
Yeah, Daddy gave Rush a medal is more the Dazzler's kind of winning argument.HHusky said:
18 U.S. Code § 241 is the law.RaceBannon said:
Well that does describe democrat voters but its not against the law anymore than it is for Biden to claim he had a covid planHHusky said:Is tricking the ignorant and gullible into not exercising their votes protected speech?
I don't think the First Amendment is your best argument here.
I agree with you that it would be smarter to argue that the statute wasn't intended to criminalize this conduct.
The First Amendment argument strikes me as a loser.


