Lindsey Graham’s Stupid Argument

@syag +1. wordy but excellent post.

re graham being 2 faced. biggest hypocrisy: confirming amy Barrett.

RE -“Mitch pushed away the senate trial after Trump left in order to have an excuse, saying that you cannot covict him after not being ;resident anymore”

Stop with your Nonsense!
If he wouldn’t have pushed it off, you really think that they could have finished the Senate trial when Trump would still be in office?!?

RE -“Heakth, your talk justifies the conviction for Trump, you wiuld have done what he was accused of”

That’s funny.
So why didn’t I go to the rally?
You DemonCrats live in your own Little World!

“It does not matter, we always go after the start as in halacha”

More Nonsense!
In Halacha – Ain Shiliach L’dvar Avairah.

RE -“You still get missah on a masis umadiac”

Please open a Sefer, like a Chumash.
Masis Umadiach is by Avodah Zora (Idol Worship), Nothing else!

RE -“Trump was worshipped as an a’z as he said he can kill someone on 5th Ave and he won’t lose his followers.”

It’s not because he was worshipped as an AZ, but because he in was in NYC.
The Libs have made NYC and every inner city, a haven for Crime.
So why should he lose any followers?
He’s part of the crowd.

RE
Thanks for the gratuitous dig, really showcases the middos necessary to call yourself Reb.
But I digress.
Be still my fluttering heart!!!!
EVEN mich McConnell agrees that there was no votes fraud.
Wow! And mr voter fraud expert McConnell did exactly how much investigating to come to his conclusion??
When exactly did he do this extensive investigation?
Or do you mean to say
McConnell says I don’t want to think about the possibility of votes fraud and it’s massive ramifications so I’ll just say there was none and fools like Reb Eliezer will take my word as gold.

You know there is a public speaker named rabbi Orlofsky,
He has a piece on atheism
A guy tells him he is an atheist. So he asks him if he read any philosophy works, when the guy tells him no, he responds,
So your not an atheist. Your an idiot. You sat in back of the bus one day and said, is there a God?, yes, no, no, yes,? I’ll go with no.
McConnell said there was no fraud.
Almost 180MILLION VOTES were officially cast and your telling me there was NO fraud????
Really???
Oh so you don’t mean NO fraud, you mean not enough fraud to sway the election.
Oh so then you are already agreeing there was fraud. So How exactly do you know how much fraud took place without investigating.
Don’t tell me statistically it wouldn’t be enough, because statistical based on all signs before the election it was going to be a trump landslide.
So basically your just taking McConnells word for it which he made based on absolutely nothing.
Your call
I’m not so gullible.
AND EVEN IF YOU WERE TO BE CORRECT!!
it’s irrelevant.
The point is the rioters believed it. So they were in their constitutionally allowed rights to do what they did.
You want to prove them wrong?
Maybe your side should have done l little bit of that before it boiled over, instead of shutting down trump and not allowing him his day in court to actually judge what evidence he claimed to have.
It’s possible to find evidence of fraud in a min, if your lucky or it’s widespread enough. To conclusively claim there was non requires exhaustive investigation.
The liberal left was claiming almost instantaneously, that there was no evidence of fraud.
That’s a claim that is false automatically due to its timing.
How about you actually think for yourself instead of just swallowing what some politician or news reporter tells you

KY

How does this constitutional right to overthrow the Government work?

I f I decide My taxes are too high and are tyrannical do I have a right to defend myself and property by shooting any IRS agents who try to take it?

thanks

Also your post is peppered with a few inaccuracies

” THAT is what created the frustration and anger to boil over into this riot, not some single speech by trump.”

No not a single speech. IT was months of saying the same, in fact he said it before the election took place, he said it before the 2016 election took place as well, sadly many of his supporters follow him no matter what. He said it so it must be true . so yes many of them believed there was fraud, but no not from a single speech.

BTW THIS is what what Trump did was so terrible. Yes, many of them think they were doing the right thing, the President said there was fraud, as many of them claimed. Your argument works to defend them, not Trump. Trump knows there was no significant fraud (He would have hired real lawyers and presented his evidence if it were real .)

I think I may agree with you on the rioters. What do we want for them, they are not very inteeligent or sophisticated, if they are told there was fraud they believe it. The guy who told these bozos over and over that there country is being stolen, and they have to fight ot keep it should be held accountable, not them.

“, because statistical based on all signs before the election it was going to be a trump landslide.”
Not sure what you mean, Most polls showed biden winning. The pundits who had accurately predicted past elections (including 2016) predicted biden winning . what signs are you referring to?

And please please please don;t use any signs ignoring Covid “oh before covid Economy was great …..” Sadly Covid happened, and can’t just be disregarded (if only!)

No, you don’t get free reign to dig at people’s screenname no matter what excuse you make up. And this is at least the third time you’ve been called out on it in the last few months. Maybe take ot to heart.

KY -“According to those who believe the vote was stolen, the people actually have a constitutional right to attack the federal government!
It is the height of absurdity to think they can only execute the right to attack the federal government for its Terrany with the permission of the federal government.
So trump was actually impeached, for supposedly upholding the law.”

It was stolen.
I saw part of M. Linden’s documentary.
Did you see it?
The problem was – Trump didn’t have the guts to do the Right thing!
He knew about all the Fraud, for sure by the end of last year.
Trump is more of a Hollywood type, than a Military Law & Order type!
Once he knew about all the Fraud – he should have declared Martial Law.
At that time, the Armed Forces would have listened to him, and you wouldn’t need any Miltia!

Btw, the Capitol rioters weren’t doing as a Milita, but just were having some fun.
The ones that were there to Attack – were from Antifa and BLM.

Ubiq
Here goes. Don’t know why I’m doing it, it’s not healthy but I can’t resist

How does this constitutional right to overthrow the Government work?

I f I decide My taxes are too high and are tyrannical do I have a right to defend myself and property by shooting any IRS agents who try to take it?
Yes. You probably do. Remember that compound in Texas? Waco?
Your probably going to lose if it’s just you though, as the government won’t take too kindly, so it’s sort of self selecting. You will only succeed if enough others agree with you. Sort of like this ”treasonous attempt to overthrow the US government,” by having a few hundred people ransack the capital building was doomed to fail from the start

thanks

Also your post is peppered with a few inaccuracies

” THAT is what created the frustration and anger to boil over into this riot, not some single speech by trump.”

No not a single speech.
Got me!!!
So change it to
Not those speeches by trump. Your missing the forest for the tree. My point was and is, it was the medias treatment of trump which fertilized the soil and irrigated it, and anything else necessary, to allow trumps speeches to have this result. (according to those who say it’s his fault)

IT was months of saying the same, in fact he said it before the election took place, he said it before the 2016 election took place as well, sadly many of his supporters follow him no matter what. He said it so it must be true .
No. Those on the left who demonize every move trump made over the last 4-5 years claim his followers move in lockstep, believing in every glorious utterance he makes.
Were you to so much as actually listen to what he says and think about it, you would realize, that,
A)his followers don’t ”always ”believe every thing he says
And
B) they do believe much of what he says because shockingly enough, most of what he says is true and common sense and reasonable.! Like the kid who said the emperor had no clothes. Everyone of high intelligence like Reb Eliezer ”knew” the kid was crazy. But guess what? He wasn’t!! He was just saying the plain unvarnished truth! So too Mr trump.

so yes many of them believed there was fraud,
There was.
but no not from a single speech.

BTW THIS is what what Trump did was so terrible. Yes, many of them think they were doing the right thing, the President said there was fraud, as many of them claimed. Your argument works to defend them, not Trump. Trump knows there was no significant fraud
”conjecture/reflection alert!!!!
No. Actually I think, like most rational people Do, trump believes the election was stolen.
He (He would have hired real lawyers and presented his evidence if it were real .)
Probably he couldn’t. Most lawyers are
Educated in liberal colleges and hate trump, and
Those who don’t are afraid of cancel culture and even their own and families personal safety.
Plus their chance of success was slim to none being as it is taking on the entire media who said from the get go that his claims are
Incendiary
False
Misleading
Unsubstantiated
Etc….
So you know you are taking on a huge challenge, the entire political establishment is spineless and almost nobody will stand with you.
Why would any lawyer want such a thankless task. That’s why he couldn’t get anyone else

I think I may agree with you on the rioters. What do we want for them, they are not very inteeligent
Cute that this word is misspelled. (just cute, we all make clumsy typos)
But I don’t believe that must be the case. Perhaps they are intelligent and actually believe the election was stolen. or sophisticated, if they are told there was fraud they believe it. The guy who told these bozos over and over that there country is being stolen, and they have to fight ot keep it should be held accountable, not them.
I ask you, if it was possible to steal the election from trump, do you for a moment believe the left would not do it?
Did they really have rolls showing hiding Biden ahead by ten points all over?? I don’t believe that. I believe the media is totally in the tank for the dems , I think their polls were completely made up, I mean they conducted them but didn’t even study their data. Just made up the numbers. So if they had a chance or Nancy had one, to steal the election,I think it’s for sure they would. So for me the question is only could they.
When you see what took place, you realize, they very well could have. Ergo, they did!

“, because statistical based on all signs before the election it was going to be a trump landslide.”
Not sure what you mean, Most polls showed biden winning.
See above. Most polls were wildly off. Till right before then suddenly they got very tight.
The pundits who had accurately predicted past elections (including 2016) predicted biden winning
Only if you searched on Google. If you used duckduckgo suddenly there were plenty who thought it was going to be from close to a trump landslide. Including some who actually made it through the Google wall.
. what signs are you referring to? See above

And please please please don;t use any signs ignoring Covid “oh before covid Economy was great …..” Sadly Covid happened, and can’t just be disregarded (if only!)
Agreed

Remember that compound in Texas? Waco?”
Yes I do, there have been plenty of armed uprisings in US history. I never heard anyone say that is their right. Interesting .
Possibly I have the wrong ”compound ”
I just remember there was an armed standoff between a group in a compound, heavily armed, and the government. I believe one of their claims was this.
But it’s irrelevant. Even if nobody claimed it, my contention is either correct or incorrect by the facts. It’s irrelevant to the veracity of it, whether someone tried to use that claim.

Though, to clarify, although I would lose it doesn’t make me wrong (obviously).
And not just Waco, I suppose all the violent BLM protesters are right too,
No. They were trashing private citizens property. I’m not aware of any right to destroy someone else private property.
You can rise against the government.

they elive (rightly or wrongly) that the Govt is tyrannical (in their treatment on blacks) as such they have a RIGHT to rise up in armed , violent rebellion, even killing cops if necessary. Is this correct?
I don’t know. Maybe yes maybe no. I pointed out that this is the way at least some constitutional scholars understand the intent of the second amendment .
I personally think that makes sense. So I choose to accept their understanding.
The fact that off the cuff I can’t give you clear guidelines to a specific scenario, doesn’t change anything.
Do you agree that that is the intent of the second amendment?
If yes, so you give the parameters.
If no, argue that point, that what I said is factually incorrect and there is no such right.
But throwing in a specific instance and me not knowing the answer doesn’t do anything.
(to clarify, had I made up that statement about the right to oppose the government, you can throw situations at me and if I can’t clarify, you can then rejoinder, so how can you possibly try to create such an ambiguous law, and perhaps you can even say, hey buddy according to your law, the following would be OK, you OK with that? And perhaps that would be enough to convince me to rescind it. But here, the law is on the books since this countries inception. I’m claiming it applies to situation a (capital riot) your rejoinder of ”so would you say it also applies to b (blm) ” is completely irrelevant)

Fair enough, sorry for putting you on the spot. 8ts an argument I’ve heard before which while fine in theory, falls apart quickly in practice. I was hoping you’d flesh it out a bit more.

Your not putting me on the spot, I have no need to know the answer because it’s not germane to my point
It’s a distraction meant to obfuscate lack of a cogent direct rational rejoinder.
I choose not to engage. See my previous post where I explained in detail.

The idea that any individual person has constitutional right to rise up against the govt if he thinks they are tyrannical is a position that stretches the imagination to the point thst most would acknowledge it can’t be true.
Total conjecture. I disagree. Most haven’t thought about it, is my opinion.

Well said Reb E.

For the person whose screen name has something to do with wisdom and silence maybe they should take that to heart. I just find it so hypocritical (guess if people complain about something must be right… in her own words).

Health

“They didn’t rule at all – they avoided any political issues.”

Lol!! in our other thread you said any pronouncement or dismissal from a court is a “ruling” or “judgment”
(Note: your statement here is correct dismissal is NOT a ruling. BUT not all cases where dismissed. Some where ruled upon and even a dismissal, depends under what grounds may or may not weaken your case)

““Biden “stole” six states?… Why didn’t they steal the senate too?””

sorry for the confusion I wasn’t actually asking these questions, they were rhetorical. I know what the answers are. I provided the answer you gave before you gave it.

KY

“Tyranny is not anything you don’t like.”

I’ll be as succinct as I can in case you decide to elaborate:

WHO gets to decide?

That is my question.

If someone is coming at me with a machete I think it’s clear I can kill them
If they are coming at me with a plastic knife I can’t.
So what about a six inch steak knife?
I don’t know.
A-ha! Got you! If you can’t answer that, obviously your not clear on the issue! So how can you say you can kill the guy attacking you with a machete??

Ubiq -“Lol!! in our other thread you said any pronouncement or dismissal from a court is a “ruling” or “judgment””

Where they actually heard the case & they dismissed it – that is a judgement.
Sometimes they were too scared to even listen to the motions!

“sorry for the confusion I wasn’t actually asking these questions, they were rhetorical.”

I really don’t care what You meant!
You asked 2 questions:
““Biden “stole” six states?… Why didn’t they steal the
Senate too?””
And I answered them!
It would look to conspicuous to Steal more!
The DemonCrats also Stole the 2 Senate Seats in Georgia.

KY

“Your evading my point.”

I’m not.
I’m showing that your point can’t be true. Since practically it wouldn’t work.
Laws are by definition practical. Having a law that if *** thinks the Government is tyranical he/she/they have the right to use force to overthrow it. With *** being an entitiy to be deteriiiiend later Is not a law any country would have .

If you think it is fine.
That is our disagreement .

“I’m not the one who made the law. It’s on the books. ”

You are and its not.
There is no such law on the books. There have been over 200 years of Court cases. Can you provide ONE court opinion, even a rejected minority opinion that gives people that interprets the 2nd amendment as giving a right to overthrow the government think the government?

In fact even the 1st amendment is somewhat limited when it comes to talk of overthrowing the government see the Smith act and US code 18 U.S. Code § 2385 – Advocating overthrow of Government” Now while SCOTUS in Yates Vs. US did interpret The SMith act more narrowly (that abstract talk of overthrow the Government was ok) They did not overturn the entire law as being against the 2nd amendment. In fact he second amendment isnt even mentioned in the decision decisions.

“Is blm also correct?”
you say “Cute what you did there” I’m not sure what you mean, that was my only question to you, from the get go. but I got my answer “If they are part of the terrible issue, then yes. ” thanks.

“So what about a six inch steak knife? I don’t know. ”

Here’s the thing, I DO know. The court decides. period. That is the answer to your question. ITs simple really. I’m not sure why you find mine more challenging

“A-ha! Got you! If you can’t answer that, obviously your not clear on the issue!”
nope you didn’t get me. and I can answer it . In fact the The answer to your question is crystal clear so much so, I’m surprised you even asked it . It has to be otherwise society couldn’t function. yo u cant have a system where each individual person decides what mode of attack deserves lethal force nor what constitutes a tyrannical government .

Ubiq,
The aha I got you was not supposed to mean I got you rather it was what you would tell me when I say I don’t know the answer however you say that you know the answer so I asked you what about a 6.2 in knife 6.3 6.4 6.87 1259 6.351 are there laws for those how about a serrated knife how about a serrated knife missing two teeth missing three teeth how about a dull knife what if it’s sharp enough to cut a cucumber but not sharp enough to cut a tomato what if it can cut a hamburger but not a bread what if the attacker weighs 290 lb what if the attacker weighs 93 lb what if the victim is fat so the knife can’t get through what if the victim is thin so you will say that the court will decide because I don’t believe that there are laws for every one of these and thousands more variables that can be made in a single instance of one person attacking another with a knife if you need the court to decide then that is not a law that is an application of a law which is what I am saying the law gives basic parameters then the law needs to be applied. Here to the law states that the citizenry has the right to overthrow a tyrannical government the application is the question I said it certainly applies in a case where it is having its vote stolen you countered what about the BLM movement I said I don’t know for sure how to apply the law in that case you are responding the court can decide of course the court can decide but it hasn’t decided yet so therefore that is not yet a law that is an application of a law and until it becomes law my opinion is just as valid as the opinion of the jurists who will make it law if it becomes a court case

Perhaps the reason you cannot come up with any cases where the courts allowed arms Uprising against the government is because until now we never had a tyrannical government in the United States of America so the lack of case to show me only proves that this law never needed to be applied it does not in any way prove that I am wrong in what I am saying perhaps I am wrong but your rejoinder does not in any way even address it again because the law was never needed to be applied due to the lack of tyrannical United States government today we have a tyrannical United States government we have a government which has no problem shutting down the rights of private citizens in many many many fashions when somebody in Brooklyn New York rose up against the government shutdowns of all public Recreation that possibly in my opinion correctly was allowed and would have been allowed with armed Insurrection as well due to the fact that the government was engaging in massive governmental overreach which is in my opinion I am going with the opinion of that scholarly article the point of the Second Amendment you don’t agree that that’s the point of the Second Amendment that’s fine then we have a fundamental disagreement in the point of the Second Amendment and I am not a constitutional scholar so I will leave it at that

Ubiq -“Excited for February 19th?”

It will be pushed off again, because a lot of cases before this one – probably was cancelled due to the Weather.

KY

“Really. So when the guy is coming at his victim with knife upraised
The victim tells him, ”hang tight, let me just make a quick call to my local court to see if I can kill you in self defense right now. BTW can you tell me the exact specifications of your knife because they will need to know. Also how much do you weigh?”

no, he does what he needs to do. Then later the police/court will determine if what he did was justified . He claims the guy had a knife, witnesses say it was plastic etc etc.
(to be clear if he was right to FEEL threatened that would be justified too in many cases eg although knife was plastic he had reason to think was real)

I’m not saying any chidushim.
you say “that’s what I have been trying to get you to understand all along.”
I got it. You keep making the same mistake.

Do you think A person can stab anyone he wants then say “Self defense! The guy was coming wit h a knife upraised”?
and that is it end of discussion! He made the claim, uttered the magic phrase and now can’t be questioned.
Johnny Cochran could’ve saved himself a lot of time, forget trying on gloves, just have OJ say the magic phrase and he walks

“I see it that the law says self defense is permitted.”

correct.

” I see the situation in in currently and I make a quick decision based on how I think the law applies to my specific scenario.”

Correct

“I don’t worry about the fact that I will not know how to answer in every other scenario. It really makes no difference.”

correct.

BUT you skipped what happens next if the police, later and courts deem your action to not have been justified. The knife was plastic for example, or he didn’t even have a knife you just claimed that he did so you can stab him.
Obviously you’d be in trouble.

Just because (you claim) you were acting in self defense doesn’t mean you are guiltless no matter what happens

“Same here.”

Correct!

“The law (according to my chosen constitutional scholar) allows overthrow of tyrannical government.”

ok, lets go with this

“I, decide that the government stealing the vote fits the bill. Bingo I can act on it.”

Correct.
BUT the police and courts will later determine if your act was jsutified, was the government really tyranical, are your claims true. Saying ” tyrannical government ” is not a magic phrase that lets you do what yu want, just like claiming “self defense” isn’t

Do I know if a different situation that you are curious about, also fits the bill of this law?
Dunno. Come over shabbos after the cholent. If I can keep my eyes open we can schmooze about it. Whats the difference??”

Two differences
1) curiosity, I find this discussion interesting
2) In my opinion it weakens your view. There have been many, (ok several.) To the best of my knowledge, NOT ONE of them made this claim, seems a bit odd. No its not proof of anything, just strange

I’d rather come for the cholent though