Trump 2024 — The second term

[foszoe]

Amazon product ASIN 0190865970
New Post Covid ediition coming out soon. Probably pick that one up.

 

[Ingomike]

I think you’re looking through a prism too. There is no evidence strong enough yo change your mind. I’m suspect there is no evidence strong enough to change SD4L’s either.

One simple question.

In Pennsylvania did others, not the legislature, direct a change in the manner in which electors were chosen?

Only two possible answers.

They did.

They did not.

 

[Ingomike]

I would bet they valued a good education.

You must have a different definition of “good education“ than I do…

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

Amazon product ASIN 0190865970
New Post Covid ediition coming out soon. Probably pick that one up.

Tom Nichols is one of my favorite turncoats. I think he genuinely cares about nothing.

 

[foszoe]

You must have a different definition of “good education“ than I do…

Well several of them went to Ivy League schools.

 

[Ingomike]

What? How do you judge the merit of a lawyer?

A track record of legal work that stands the test of time coupled with adherence to the constitution. Whether that is drawing up wills that do what the client wanted or deeds the country will accept, all the way to constitutional law argued in front of SCOTUS.

Judge the mans work, it is a cheap copout to dismiss anyone because they did not attend a snob elite school. Then couple that with what is now being exposed about the educational indoctrination these schools are providing and the fact employers are beginning to avoid them.

Yep, it is elitist to knock a guy for not having a snob degree, and especially unseemly for salt of the earth folks on INGO…

 

[jamil]

Tom Nichols is one of my favorite turncoats. I think he genuinely cares about nothing.

Joe Biden is an enemy of the United States. We can no longer indulge the pretense that supporting him is just another political choice or that agreeing with his attacks on our democracy is just a difference of opinion.


There. Works both ways. Now what? Divorce?

 

[jamil]

A track record of legal work that stands the test of time coupled with adherence to the constitution. Whether that is drawing up wills that do what the client wanted or deeds the country will accept, all the way to constitutional law argued in front of SCOTUS.

Judge the mans work, it is a cheap copout to dismiss anyone because they did not attend a snob elite school. Then couple that with what is now being exposed about the educational indoctrination these schools are providing and the fact employers are beginning to avoid them.

Yep, it is elitist to knock a guy for not having a snob degree, and especially unseemly for salt of the earth folks on INGO…

The point made was that he didn’t have any credentials to speak of.

If you use an appeal to authority to make a claim about the validity of a legal theory, which you kinda did, then it’s fair to use criteria that asserts a lack of credentials as a counterpoint. And to your standards, what did he do that you can point to that makes him an authority?

You’re just throwing the term “elitist” around As an argument. It doesn’t work. That’s not a rebuttal.

 

[KG1]

Apparently Trump and Guliani thought of Eastman as a scholar. This is how he (Guiliani) introduced Eastman at the "Save America Rally" on J6. Perhaps they were over selling Eastman's credentials.

Two speakers immediately preceded Trump on stage that day: Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, legal advisers to Trump who made the case that Pence could and should prevent the counting of slates of certified Electoral College votes that day.

“Every single thing that has been outlined as the plan for today is perfectly legal,” Giuliani said at the rally.

"I have Professor Eastman here with me to say a few words about that. He’s one of the preeminent constitutional scholars in the United States."

 

[jamil]

Seems to me if he’s a preeminent constitutional scholar, they’re appealing to authority. Which Mike insists is elitist.

 

[Ingomike]

Eastman was once thought of as a constitutional scholar. Trump trusted his counsel.

I'll revisit this... thought of by who? He was a professor at Chapman University (Fowler) Law School... ranked 109th among law schools by US News and World Report, and for what it's worth, I had never even heard of prior to this.

The point made was that he didn’t have any credentials to speak of.

If you use an appeal to authority to make a claim about the validity of a legal theory, which you kinda did, then it’s fair to use criteria that asserts a lack of credentials as a counterpoint. And to your standards, what did he do that you can point to that makes him an authority?

You’re just throwing the term “elitist” around As an argument. It doesn’t work. That’s not a rebuttal.

I do not know anything about the man. No one said he didn’t have ”any credentials to speak of”. But it is elitist to claim he is not a constitutional scholar based solely on the institution he works for. So stop with the BS and read the quotes…

 

[jamil]

I do not know anything about the man. No one said he didn’t have ”any credentials to speak of”. But it is elitist to claim he is not a constitutional scholar based solely on the institution he works for. So stop with the BS and read the quotes…

Okay. You didn’t like the way I worded it. I’ll ask differently. What establishes Eastman as a constitutional scholar? But maybe the better question. Is your belief in the validity of the legal theory that they tried to get Pence to go along with, influenced by the credibility of Eastman as a legal scholar? Do you believe he knows his ****? If so, what is your evidence he does?

 

[Ingomike]

Seems to me if he’s a preeminent constitutional scholar, they’re appealing to authority. Which Mike insists is elitist.

Stop changing the meaning of my post because you feel the need to run on.

The man was denigrated solely based on the school he works with. I said that is elitist.

 

[Ingomike]

Okay. You didn’t like the way I worded it. I’ll ask differently. Shat establishes Eastman as a constitutional scholar? But maybe the better question. Is your belief in the validity of the legal theory that they tried to get Pence to go along with, influenced by the credibility of Eastman as a legal scholar? Do you believe he knows his ****? If so, what is your evidence he does?

Can you not read? It is in the post you quote. Repeat, I do not know anything about the man that was denigrated solely based on the school he works with. I said that is elitist.

 

[Route 45]

There. Works both ways. Now what? Divorce?

Some people are saying it...

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I wonder what the LSAT scores were for the founding fathers?

Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton were all "learned"... William and Mary (times 2) and Kings College (now Columbia).

You just doubled down on elitism.

IU and Iowa law schools (not putting them down, they're solid) are "elite"? I think Harvard, Yale, Columbia and Stanford would be surprised to hear that.

In your mind woke companies hiring those indoctrinated woke elite grads equates to their constitutional competence. I reject that elitism…

Chapman does not attract the "best and brightest"... no two ways about it.

While you strawman argue "elite" (i.e. traditionally Ivy League), Chapman is not even top tier non-Ivy league.

I find it bizarre that the hill you choose to put it all on is that somehow little Chapman is the hidden font of Constitutional Law.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

This seems more like a bait and switch. This isn’t what you claimed. The point was in support of your claim that Trump knew he lost the election fairly. So help me get there. I don’t see any evidence here that proves this.

My claims were twofold:

1. Eastman disavowed his memo, both intellectual ownership of it (his recounting is he was tasked with writing HOW it would proceed) as well as supporting the proposition of it (he told Pence "No" he did not possess that power in the briefinf with Trump and Pence).

2. That if Trump still "believed" that his win in Georgia, specifically, was stolen, it was a delusion belief. After the Georgia telephone call, where the GA SoS explained in painful detail how ALL of the claims he made on social media were patently false, Trump continued to spout the same knowingly false claims. Are you stating that he would have had to have stated "I lost, we lost" to some confidant?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Is judging on merit really “elitism”?

Merit is the antithesis of elitism.

 

[jamil]

Stop changing the meaning of my post because you feel the need to run on.

The man was denigrated solely based on the school he works with. I said that is elitist.

You posted that SD4L was being elitist by saying there’s no evidence Eastman is any kind of scholar, citing a mediocre position. So your rebuttal to that is using credentials is elitist. The post I replied to was Team Trump selling this guy to the crowd, claiming he has credentials as a top constitutional scholar. Is that not the same elitism to claim he’s an elite scholar?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I do not know anything about the man. No one said he didn’t have ”any credentials to speak of”. But it is elitist to claim he is not a constitutional scholar based solely on the institution he works for. So stop with the BS and read the quotes…

You miss my point... with a whole nation of law schools, a whole department of working constitutional attorneys in the Solicitor General's office, with a seasoned AG in William Barr... Trump CHOSE a professor from Chapman as HIS "Constitutional Scholar" because in that whole universe of choices, Eastman was the only one who gave him what he wanted.