1
JohnCocktoastin 1 point ago +1 / -0

If given a choice between a red flag law or an involuntary lock up law, I will take the former over the latter. This guy took bad, and turned it into worse. The fuck is wrong with him?

1
JohnCocktoastin 1 point ago +1 / -0

Lol @ handshake asking why propagandists are behaving in conformity with propagandists

2
JohnCocktoastin 2 points ago +2 / -0

Just another attempt at dehumanizing dissent. If you aren’t a branch Covidian, you might as well be hitler. The lowest form of shit on earth. This is a hit piece on anyone not going along with the larp. And I would bet the farm these people were in on the setup.

1
JohnCocktoastin 1 point ago +1 / -0

The FBI video sounds larptastic. And inconsequential. If the judge really wanted to be gangster, he would ban it under rule 904.03 for confusion of the issues/misleading the jury.

Wisconsin Rules of Evidence 904.03:

Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

It is just a sideshow because it takes a true statement about Wisconsin law - that an initial aggressor cannot claim self defense - but goes on to ignore the rest of the statute that provides avenues for an initial aggressor to regain his self defense privilege. Which includes retreating from the initial encounter, like Kyle unequivocally did. So even if we accept this as true (I don’t) it doesn’t have any bearing except to smear him and mislead the jury into confusing the issue.

1
JohnCocktoastin 1 point ago +2 / -1

I guess but where is he now with this giant cluster mess? CoC can’t have very good business at the moment. I know my business is entirely dysfunctional because of these asshats. It takes about 3x as much time and energy just to direct this shit as it used to. And it shouldn’t. This is all self sabotage. Shooting yourself in both feet and both ass cheeks level stuff. The kinda nonsense in a sane world would have dick Cheney, george bush, mike pence, mike lee, and mitt Romney have a stroke on tv about every hour of every day. But we live in clown world and they only attack us.

4
JohnCocktoastin 4 points ago +4 / -0

At some point we just have to stop giving a shit if someone threatens violence against dissenters. The older I get, the less content I am with my inevitable mortality. But I also get continually more accepting that I am not in control of it. This happens when it happens, and there is no doubt it is gonna happen. I have made peace with this. I’m not doing anything retarded. But nobody can back me down from a righteous act with threats. Ain’t happening. Whoever is making the threat can decide if they would like to have a contest to see which one of us is making it out.

1
JohnCocktoastin 1 point ago +2 / -1

I know for a fact this is fake and gay larp. Everyone here knows you are making this up. McStain NEVER received a blowjob from a non tranny even before his stay at the Hanoi hilton. NEVER. This is well documented. Do you think we are all retarded around here or what?

7
JohnCocktoastin 7 points ago +7 / -0

Libertarianism has been turned into the minimum state required to maintain a level a half tier above anarchy. When what it really is about is the minimum state required to have a functioning and prosperous society. Realistically, this is what the founders believed in, but it was called “federalism.” And they attempted to achieve this by dispersing government authority across varying levels and institutionalizing the limits of the powers that each could exercise. The closer to the people that government was, the greater the powers it could exercise. Because it was believed that such a government was more directly accountable to the governed. So it was an acceptable risk to permit this. And with state boundaries, you could just leave if one place turned into a needle infested shit covered commieland like SFO.

7
JohnCocktoastin 7 points ago +8 / -1

Mike Lee was based back then. Something happened and the guy was AWOL the entirety of Trump’s presidency. WTF happened to him? He literally disappeared. Even now, where the fuck has the guy been?

2
JohnCocktoastin 2 points ago +2 / -0

First time I’ve heard him go after either of these guys. And this is the most forceful callout I’ve heard him make. When Lindsey has a chance to come up from McConnell’s waist for air, he’s gonna be panicked. No bigger lil bitch in the senate than this guy. Even the democrats don’t have a bitch like this over there. He can’t help himself; there is no way that Lindsey can’t respond to this. Can’t wait to see him have a meltdown on Hannity’s show in between circle jerks about MMA and muh jab n muh rank n file n muh tick fuckin tock.

1
JohnCocktoastin 1 point ago +1 / -0

I thought I pretty much explained it by saying that the entirety of certifying presidential electors is left to Congress. Whether they were chosen by fraud or not is not of consequence. Congress has an ability to deal with that. They can reject them. The Vice President could have sent correspondence according to the statute on the statutory deadline that he was not in receipt of electors duly appointed according to the laws of the state of X and would you please send them. Certainly those states could have sent the same ones. Pence would have been forced to accept them. But Congress didn’t have to accept them. They could have voted not to. And when no candidate had 270, Congress would then select the president according to the constitutional process. Nobody in that building was without knowledge of fraud.

Again, you accuse me of not wanting to acknowledge something, but you don’t want to acknowledge that the only way to fix this is either impeachment or outside the bounds of the constitution. You have yet to articulate a basis by which you would get before a judge. Laches would bar any plaintiffs claims at this point. For similar reasons that make it disingenuous to argue that Congress did not know about fraud.

The most similar type of lawsuit to deal with unlawful office holders is the quo warranto statute. But it exempts house, senate, president and Vice President. Why do you think that is, if not because the Constitution provides the remedy for this instead of judges? It most clearly does for house and senate. If I were to accept your contention at face value that courts could do something about the presidency on a fraud basis, there is zero doubt that courts have no place in dealing with the house or senate. When the Constitution says “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members” how the hell does a court ever get involved in that? It couldn’t be more clear. This is an article I power not an article III power.

While less crystal clear than Article I is about congressional elections, every court in the country is going to apply the same logic. Especially when there is a remedy. The failure to have the votes to exercise it isn’t a basis for judicial review.

You are failing to make a key distinction and this is why it isn’t clicking for you. Biden’s presidential electors were fraudulently chosen. Biden’s presidential elector certification by Congress was lawful and without flaws. Except MAYBE some minor procedural flaws relating to verbiage and timing that zero courts are going to butt their heads into. My memory is a tad foggy on that but something happened that day that wasn’t perfectly consistent with what they had to do. Courts don’t mess with Congress’s rules about how Congress conducts itself. And that is what these rules related to.

So even if you could somehow succeed in invalidating his electors’ certification from the states by a judge, that would be a useless act beyond optics and damning the entire uniparty machine. A worthy goal. But not one that gets you a result more than optics. There is an extra step that a court can’t invalidate, which was Congress’s vote to certify. They cannot undo it. There is no basis for this. They knew it was fraud and voted for it anyway. What you are arguing is hardly different than arguing that SCOTUS could undo the first senate impeachment if they got 67 votes because it was a fake n gay larp and even if it were true it wasn’t a high crime or misdemeanor. No they couldn’t. That is an Article I power.

7
JohnCocktoastin 7 points ago +7 / -0

I would not hesitate to intervene with deadly force in a situation like this if it happened here. States have varying nuances on the laws of self defense, especially as it relates to others but I'll use Texas as an example. Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.31

SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor: (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.32 DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Texas Penal Code Sec. 9.33

DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

1
JohnCocktoastin 1 point ago +1 / -0

I somehow get downvoted for pointing out HIPPA only covers "covered entities" which are 99.99% never employers. Only employers administering their own health plans would fit. Why the hell people would downvote me for pointing this out I'll never understand.

45 CFR § 160.103 Covered entity means: (1) A health plan. (2) A health care clearinghouse. (3) A health care provider who transmits any health information in electronic form in connection with a transaction covered by this subchapter.

Now you can get into the weeds when talking about business associates, what is a healthcare clearinghouse, what is a "health plan" and so on and so on. But these generally never encompass employers. There are lots of exceptions to this, as well as distinctions made between when authorizations are required vs notice of privacy practices being sufficient. And deidentified PHI can be shared without violating HIPPA.

The key people need to understand about HIPPA is that this governs protecting information in the possession of these parties. It does not govern requests for information. At least, not to the extent that we are talking here. A covered entity in possession of PHI may not disclose PHI absent an express authorization from the person detailing the specific PHI to be disclosed. But nothing about HIPPA prevents anyone, including a covered entity, from requesting PHI from you. That is not illegal. No covered entity may disclose your PHI without authorization, unless it is to an exempted party. And you might really hate to know that health departments are exempt from HIPPA compliance. Your PHI may be disclosed to a health department without your authorization and it is not a HIPPA violation.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/45/160.103

8
JohnCocktoastin 8 points ago +8 / -0

Not unless they are a covered entity, which covers virtually no employers except those that run their own employee health programs.

14
JohnCocktoastin 14 points ago +15 / -1

HIPPA has no application here. HIPPA only applies to covered entities. If you feel like going down that rabbit hole, I would be prepared to have a pillow and a place to lay down. You will fall asleep rapidly reading the HIPPA regulations in the CFR. Boring af. HIPPA also is virtually useless...rarely enforced. 99% of cases filed under HIPPA are wrongful termination suits for employees fired over alleged HIPPA violations. Once in awhile DHHS fines the shit out of a covered entity for violations but mostly it is a self report/self correct solution.

26
JohnCocktoastin 26 points ago +27 / -1

HIPPA doesn't prevent shit except doctors and others in possession of your PHI from sharing it without authorization or via exceptions by statute/regulation.

29
JohnCocktoastin 29 points ago +29 / -0

and your lawyer need a continuance for 6 more weeks to get back to you after doing some preliminary research.

1
JohnCocktoastin 1 point ago +1 / -0

How about sanctions against all unlawful public health directive perpetrators and enforcers?

6
JohnCocktoastin 6 points ago +6 / -0

They already did sue and fucked up their complaint down in Florida. By not actually filing a complaint just a laundry list of gripes and a demand for an injunction that got thrown out back in mid august. I haven't seen if they refiled or not.

8
JohnCocktoastin 8 points ago +8 / -0

This is misleading. Even though turtle is trash. His position is that the republicans will not go along with this. The democrats have made their bed and turtle doesnt think the republicans should have to assist in further cluster fucks to "fix" it

view more: Next ›