Republicans Say the Darndest Things!

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4666792-north-carolina-could-ban-face-masks-for-medical-reasons-in-public/

1 Like


do these count?

\textcolor{red}{\text{Any reason to suspect they're Republicans?}}

1 Like

Republicans? Maybe.
Trumpicans? Definitely.

1 Like

I wasn’t too sure about this quote:

"GOP Sen. Buck Newton brushed off the concerns, saying no one saw “Granny getting arrested in the Walmart pre-COVID” "

Is he saying that won’t be arresting Granny (or other people they like, presumably) even though it is illegal?

It sounds like “we will use this law selectively to punish people we don’t like.”

I’d assume if this was a realistic law as opposed to the above, they could just have an add-on charge for “wearing a mask to conceal identity while committing a crime.”

Written this way, if one protester is wearing an N95 for health reasons, they have cause to send police into the protesters, which could cause a disturbance which creates pretense for more arrests.

I imagine there won’t be a lot of sightings of Granny post-COVID in some states because many of them died when younger people didn’t respect the mask mandates.

1 Like

This

Article also says he “thinks law enforcement will use good common sense when applying the law”

Likely means neonazis parading in the street masked is fine, but round up those Palestinian human rights protesters.

1 Like

Not saying, strictly, but expressing a political opinion.

[tl/dr]same old, same old

I do not think this is the optimal response, for anyone.

1 Like

Screenshot 2024-05-19 at 9.21.50 PM

And some responses:
Screenshot 2024-05-19 at 9.22.49 PM

Screenshot 2024-05-19 at 9.22.58 PM

Screenshot 2024-05-19 at 9.23.08 PM

Screenshot 2024-05-19 at 9.23.18 PM

Screenshot 2024-05-19 at 9.23.28 PM

Screenshot 2024-05-19 at 9.23.40 PM

Screenshot 2024-05-19 at 9.23.50 PM

2 Likes

Reminded me of this photo:

https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=girls+at+show+support+at+Manson's+trial&fr=mcafee&type=E210US714G0&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fimg2.timeinc.net%2Fpeople%2Fi%2F2016%2Fnews%2F160215%2Fmanson-girls-a-1024.jpg#id=21&iurl=https%3A%2F%2Fs.yimg.com%2Fny%2Fapi%2Fres%2F1.2%2FFG_8uai4fa47Pn6xSOyDuw--%2FYXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTEyMDA7aD03OTM-%2Fhttps%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen%2Fvc-star-ventura-county-star%2F1092cbd570e0d0fede74bdae53a0ce94&action=click

1 Like

Assuming “Republicans Do” is also allowed: A knock-down brawl between two senior women at an AZ GOP precinct meeting:

Fresh enough that I haven’t seen reporting on what they’re fighting over, but it tickles me to see how many GOP meetings are ending in fisticuffs with other Republicans. In my state, the MAGA majority of the state GOP publicly called traditional Republicans “the enemy within.” And they keep punching each other - or I think one was a kick to the dick.

2 Likes

From my Yahoo news feed

For an apples-to-apples comparison, is that based on how all Justices rule, or how corrupt Justices rule?

1 Like

FWIW, in a hypothetical world where Sotomayor’s husband was a BLM rally organizer and there was a case related to BLM at SCOTUS, I would rail against Sotomayor if she didn’t recuse herself. Justices are allegedly supposed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

In the era of Trump, that has devolved to “it’s not technically a crime, and besides, we all do it.” Even if some Justices don’t, e.g. Kagan declining bagels and lox due to concerns how it would look ethically.

2 Likes

To be fair, I think judges and justices are pretty reluctant to recuse themselves unless it’s something absolutely iron-clad such as they were the judge or attorney in a lower court decision.

I don’t think Kagan refusing bagels & lox is indicative of Sotomayor’s likelihood of recusing herself from a BLM case.

It is certainly indicative of Kagan’s likelihood of accepting expensive trips or borrowing 6 figure sums money from an individual not related to her rather than from family or a bank though.

Newsmax: Is this the same bipartisan border bill that you initially co-authored several months ago?

GOP Sen. Lankford: It is

Newsmax: So you still stand by this bill today, but you’re going to vote against it, is that accurate?

Lankford: I am

https://x.com/BidenHQ/status/1793745125899722894?t=bRriOiMQc8kbZdgbdUFmAA&s=19

2 Likes

It’s apparently not a rare thing. Or wasn’t? I didn’t run into a easy free source to check. But here’s the scorecard of the SC justices in just 2015 according to The Justices Recused Themselves an Astounding 180 Times Last Term | Fix the Court

Uh, 115 of those 180 are the two newest justices recusing themselves because they were involved in the case before it got to the SCOTUS, so you kind of illustrated my point.

Stock ownership and family ties and being named in the complaint are also pretty iron clad.

So less than once a year, on average, for reasons that don’t fit neatly into an iron clad category.