Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(108,010 posts)
Sat Oct 15, 2022, 12:31 PM Oct 2022

'I'm Sorry ... Mr. Snowflake': Trump Gets Stark Reality Check From Rep. Jamie Raskin

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) on Friday dismantled former President Donald Trump’s 14-page response to a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the deadly U.S. Capitol riot.

Raskin, a member of the committee, told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes that Trump was already “playing his silly games” with his reply.

“I mean, that letter, including the use of the royal ‘we,’ which was pretty jarring, is just an outrageous distraction from the reality to the extent that there’s anything substance or substantive there,” he continued.

Raskin reality-checked Trump over his claim that Republicans “feel” the election was rigged, saying MAGA Republicans have as yet been unable to pinpoint to him how the vote was actually stolen.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/i-m-sorry-mr-snowflake-trump-gets-stark-reality-check-from-rep-jamie-raskin/ar-AA12ZmB7

1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
'I'm Sorry ... Mr. Snowflake': Trump Gets Stark Reality Check From Rep. Jamie Raskin (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Oct 2022 OP
All of a piece with "sincerely held religious beliefs" gratuitous Oct 2022 #1

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
1. All of a piece with "sincerely held religious beliefs"
Sat Oct 15, 2022, 12:48 PM
Oct 2022

Somehow this bullshit was given the Supreme Court's imprimatur, and not even for a person, but a corporate entity. And now that a sincerely held religious belief has greater force (in certain circumstances) than the Constitution, the former guy and his supporters have latched onto this ridiculous notion. As long as they sincerely believe (or at least can sell it as a sincere belief) something, it carries all the force of law and reality. Asking for actual facts to back up their sincere belief is violative of their First Amendment rights.

It's a matter of time before the Supreme Court, as currently constituted, issues a decision that enshrines this nonsense into case law in a fashion that carries the day for a tyrannical minority. After all, "majority rules" isn't anywhere in the Constitution!

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»'I'm Sorry ... Mr. Snowfl...