Said that the SC’s main function is to preserve the Republic, not follow the law if it would threaten the integrity of the Republic’s cohesion, and so the 4 SC conservative judges will agree to decide to rule against Trump and that way us conservatives will be very disappointed, but seeing the majority or near majority ruling, we will say “okay well we don’t like the ruling but there was unanimous agreement in the SC so we are good Americans and we will accept it.”
Somehow Scott did not also produce this twin argument:
SC’s main interest being the preservation of the Republic, the left leaning judges will decide to rule for Trump and that way Liberals will be very disappointed, but seeing majority or near majority ruling from their side on the court, the Left will say “okay well we don’t like the ruling but there was unanimous agreement in the SC so we are good Americans and we will accept it.”
That is LOGICALLY ON PAR from the other side of the coin with his prediction, without any added caveats needed, but YET he somehow puts the onus on the conservative judges to “do the right thing”.
God damn what an asshat. As if a unanimous SC ruling that makes voter fraud the winner would not fundamentally break the social contract and destroy the integrity of the Republic at its very core principle.
Scotty.....always trying to find a way to run away from a fight. I also notice how scared he is of a civil war.....by always absolutely denying ANY possibility. Saying “impossible because no one wants one”. LOLOLOLOLOL as if that is how civil wars are prevented.... like....history Scotty, wtf??
Dilbert is always just out for clicks. I stopped paying attention to him when he vacillated a few times ago. He and Tim Pool should just fuck and end the tension.
They rule against Trump and there is no more Republic.
I have heard him say that if they pack the court then there is no more Republic.
What he just proposed is philosophically “packing the court“. He can’t see that?
It's that simple. Fart sniffers like Adams are driven to say pithy and 'original' things so they can stroke themselves, independent of logic.
if he is a true pacifist, then yes. he will say these things.
ive been wanting armed conflict since 0bama.
Neville Chamberlain draws Dilbert?
I suspect a stealth red pill. Adams often plays the contrarian gadfly to educate and persuade.
Jesus Christ already. The people on this site are turning on every last ally they had. Pretty soon you won't have any if you continue having meltdowns when people don't say exactly what you want to hear. Quit behaving like a leftist cancel culture dipshit. People are always going to say things you don't like. Some of you cry real grown man tears when a prominent figure won't publicly state the Loch Ness Monster and the FBI did 9/11. Pathetic.
Cheney did 9/11. But then......Bush-voter morons will never go there. Will they?
Fucked if I know or care. Until Obama came along, Bush was IMO the worst American president ever.
Agree.
Let's see, 75% of Rs and about 30% of Ds agree that Trump was defrauded. How the FUCK is this a viable country now, if SCOTUS rules in favor of Biden, fraud, and the globalist agenda? How is that supposed to placate tax payers, soldiers, ANYONE-? Knowing that voting is a complete joke, with the outcome predetermined?
You're confusing Scott with the average talking head on the news. He has his own goals. He often says things he thinks are true but that he doesn't necessarily want - for example flashback to 2015 when he said Trump would win. He also plays persuasion games with his audience. The fact that people tune in to a 'master persuader' to learn about 'persuasion' and turn off their critical thinking when listening to him is hilarious.
Calm your tits, I just listened to the whole thing.
Adams is a strategist, and his stock in trade is bringing up possibilities that have been thus far overlooked. This is one, and his analysis makes sense. If you turned it off as soon as he suggested a rationale for assigning the cases to the allegedly conservative justices, you missed the rest of the analysis.
I think those justices may well have received those assignments willingly IN CASE what comes up to them is insufficient. That part makes a kind of sense. However, Adams also thinks the case is a winner, and he also points out that DJT, upon a loss, can and should become a media mogul, which might ultimately wind up being to the voters' advantage.
He's looking at DJT's hand, and its strong.
Calm your tits. He failed to make argument that the leftist judges could do the same exact play.
His periscope.
Trust me. Trump didn’t pend the most critical pivot in our nations history on hoping SCOTUS gets this right. Stand damn and stand by.