Was 2020 election stolen or not?

[LV426]

Fuck your clown world bullshit.

Kill yourself.

 

[Flash]

Right, so Flash, the court ruled that her home was not in the child's best interests, and they made a point to call that specific symbol out.

No, they did not rule that. They discussed that symbol because it was an issue in the father's appeal. It was not an issue before his appeal, it was not an issue for the other two children, and it is not an issue if they maintain joint custody and do not declare the mother's house the primary residence, and they never said it was not in the child's interest. They said it would be one factor they would consider.

I don't have a problem with the court asking it be removed to reduce conflict with the father, but to expand this case to include adults, or children in general, or saying the symbol is harmful is false information.

So that means the symbol is more than just a symbol, doesn't it?

A symbol is what any person wants it to be. Nobody gets to decide what it means for others and nobody gets to restrict the freedom of anyone to display it in most circumstances.

It means that symbol negatively affects the welfare of the child, so the symbol most definitely causes harm.

The court never ruled it causes harm. If it causes harm, it is strange she can keep it for her other two children and even for the girl in question if parents retain joint custody.

So a court ruled that flag or symbol or whatever you want to call it, had to be removed

Nope. They ruled if it is not removed it is one factor that can be considered in the interest of the child. If, for example, more negative information is revealed about the father (he has also moved many times) they can choose to give her custody despite the rock.

This entire discussion is because you can't admit you were wrong about the Confederate flag being protected under the 1st amendment. Instead, you find a case involving child custody and try to pretend that it proves we are not free to display any symbol we choose. That is really low.

If the woman and her husband get back together they are free to put up a flag pole with a Confederate flag in their yard. Any arguments about "harm" are then moot and prove the silliness of your argument.

 

[Flash]

Look, you're just making this shit up as you go...like how you made up shit about the conflict between the two parents in order to explain away the stupid thing you said before.

I didn't make up anything about the conflict between the two parents. I read the actually case which obviously you did not bother to do. However, I posted excerpts from the case involving the conflict. Try reading.

No, it actually wasn't, and if a symbol harms a child, then it harms an adult too.

How does a Confederate flag hurt you? Does it harm all adults?

Does that mean it can be prohibited? No. The courts have always said freedom of expression protects crude, objectionable, and obnoxious speech.

Admit it LV426, you are wrong on this and can't stand to admit it. You have not one thing to support your case other than minor cases on child custody and harassment; neither of which required the flag be removed. You confuse opinion with fact.

 

[Flash]

Right, but the court specifically called out that racist symbol.

Now, why would the court do that if, as you say, symbols don't cause harm?

It was an exhibit introduced as evidence and in the mother's testimony at the hearing. It was not an issue for the family court or the child's attorney.

 

[LV426]

It was an exhibit introduced as evidence and in the mother's testimony at the hearing. It was not an issue for the family court or the child's attorney.

Evidence to which the court tied specific action via its orders.

So the 1A does not give you the absolute right to wave that dumb flag around, and a judge can order you to remove it...WHICH IS WHAT YOU SAID WAS A LIE.

 

[LV426]

Also, when it came to my prediction that Trump would cancel the election (I think I may have said "try to cancel the election", and Flash is just leaving out the "try"), that prediction came dangerously close to being fulfilled on January 6th.

 

[LV426]

Also, when it came to my prediction that Trump would cancel the election (I think I may have said "try to cancel the election", and Flash is just leaving out the "try"), that prediction came dangerously close to being fulfilled on January 6th.

Yeah, it turns out I did say Trump would TRY to cancel the election:

About 40% of voters, unfortunately. I still don't think we are going to have elections in November. I think Trump is going to try and use the second wave as the reason to cancel them. That's why he wants to open everything back up...he wants there to be a second surge so he can invoke emergency powers to cancel the election out of "safety". And he has a subservient GOP to protect him when he does. After all, they wouldn't remove him for committing treason in order to rig the 2020 election, so they'll stand idly by as he cancels this one because they all know they're toast in November.

Flash left the "try" out to try and frame my prediction as a lie because Flash is an old fuck whose mind has been slowly eaten away by early onset dementia or alcoholism, and he's also a petty little prick who will constantly -CONSTANTLY- slices and dices in bad faith in order to loft pointless contrarianism.

The irony is that in trying to prove a prediction was a lie, Flash ended up lying about what I said.

 

[LV426]

1. Trump is going to cancel the election.

2. Trump is going to delay the election.

First off, Flashie poo, these are predictions, not lies.

Secondly, you are lying about what I predicted!

What I said was that Trump would try to cancel the elections, and he certainly did try to do that, and it culminated on 1/6.

Here's what I originally said back on 4/22/20 that you distorted, lied about, and manipulated into saying something else:

About 40% of voters, unfortunately. I still don't think we are going to have elections in November. I think Trump is going to try and use the second wave as the reason to cancel them. That's why he wants to open everything back up...he wants there to be a second surge so he can invoke emergency powers to cancel the election out of "safety". And he has a subservient GOP to protect him when he does. After all, they wouldn't remove him for committing treason in order to rig the 2020 election, so they'll stand idly by as he cancels this one because they all know they're toast in November.

So I said he would TRY to cancel them.

Just like I said he would TRY to postpone them.

And he did try to cancel them and postpone them, and that effort culminated in the 1/6 failed coup.

So Flash, how come YOU LIED about what I said?

This is yet another example of the same shitty bad personal habits you just can't seem to correct. You just can't seem to debate honestly with anyone. Right here is an example of how you are dishonest and lie about what other people say. Why the fuck do you do that? What is your problem?

 

[Flash]

Evidence to which the court tied specific action via its orders.

So the 1A does not give you the absolute right to wave that dumb flag around, and a judge can order you to remove it...WHICH IS WHAT YOU SAID WAS A LIE.

The court did not order it removed. He said if it was not removed the Family Court would consider it a change in circumstances and "shall factor this into any future best interests analysis."

The Court can factor in the flag painted on a rock and still determine it is in the best interest of the child to remain with the mother.

Most importantly, this is not a 1st amendment case but a family court custody action. Outside the narrowly tailored factors of this case all U. S. residents (citizens or non-citizens) have the absolute right to display whatever symbol they choose.

We all know these rights are not absolute, but displaying a flag or symbol is not one of the exceptions to freedom of expression. And you know we were discussing the general issue and not custody cases. In the last case you presented you claimed the judge did not allow a couple to display the flag but when we read the case he only ordered it be moved a certain distance away because the couple had been harassing their neighbors unrelated to the flag.

No matter how much you try to weasel out of this it remains a fact that everybody is free to display whatever symbols they choose outside of any conduct not related to the content of the free expression.

 

[Flash]

First off, Flashie poo, these are predictions, not lies.

Secondly, you are lying about what I predicted!

What I said was that Trump would try to cancel the elections, and he certainly did try to do that, and it culminated on 1/6.

Here's what I originally said back on 4/22/20 that you distorted, lied about, and manipulated into saying something else:



So I said he would TRY to cancel them.

Just like I said he would TRY to postpone them.

And he did try to cancel them and postpone them, and that effort culminated in the 1/6 failed coup.

So Flash, how come YOU LIED about what I said?

This is yet another example of the same shitty bad personal habits you just can't seem to correct. You just can't seem to debate honestly with anyone. Right here is an example of how you are dishonest and lie about what other people say. Why the fuck do you do that? What is your problem?

You lied because Trump never "tried" to cancel the election (before it occurred). You said it was their "ultimate goal." You never had any evidence he tried to cancel it or that is was their ultimate goal. What action did he take to try to cancel anything?

 

[LV426]

You lied because Trump never "tried" to cancel the election (before it occurred).

LMAO! Wow. So this, ladies and gentlemen, is what it looks like when someone has to eat shit. You have to re-qualify your already qualified LYING CLAIM about what I said.

Oy vey, what are we gonna do with you, Flash?

You said it was their "ultimate goal."

Yeah, and they very nearly pulled it off on 1/6.

You never had any evidence he tried to cancel it or that is was their ultimate goal.

Right, it was my hunch from April 2020 that was ultimately proven valid by the actions of the GOP and Conservatives from 11/4/20 - 1/6/21.

What action did he take to try to cancel anything?

Are you fucking kidding me? He organized the insurrection which was the ultimate act in attempting to cancel the election.

He also had his surrogates put pressure on election officials to overturn the results to declare him the winner, or to put pressure on State Electors to vote against the will of the people...that's what Mark Meadows and Lindsey Graham may ultimately have to answer for in a Fulton County criminal court.

 

[Into the Night]

A child and child custody are very different than Evince. A flag can't hurt her and she does not get the same protection from the state as a child.

An adult is free to have sex but that does not apply to children. See the difference?

It is very dishonest of you to refuse to recognize the issues of child custody and try to equate those to our constitutional rights. The article you posted clearly said it is her 1st amendment right to display that flag. It did not say she is free to raise a child in any conditions she chooses.

What if she teaches that child that different races should be separate and that whites are superior? Is that more or less harmful than a flag?

She can teach her child anything like that of the sort. YOU do not get to assign 'harm'. You are not the king.

 

[Into the Night]

Federal courts do not follow precedent from state courts. The precedent regarding displaying the flag is that is her constitutional right and that precedent is not going to be overturned.



That is what the court said, but it did not say it was "harmful." The kid hits, swears, and spits and has behavior problems so they obviously need to do anything to reduce conflict between parents.

She has two other kids so the flag must not be harmful to them.



There are no flags to wave around. It is painted on a small rock by her driveway, something kids are unlikely to spend much time looking at.

A court can do nothing to reduce conflict between parents.

 

[Into the Night]

That is because you don't read carefully and have little understanding of constitutional law. You argue your opinions and not facts.

Kettle logic. You are also describing yourself.

I never argued symbols cause harm.

Yesterday your issue was that when I answered your question I did not include additional editorial comments about why I thought that answer was a lie. That was irrelevant to the question you asked and a distraction to the actual answer. You argue with what people don't say even when it is irrelevant.

I never repeated any untruths as being true but you have stated many incorrect assertions today regarding constitutional law and the court case involving the Confederate flag.

To equate child custody issues with claiming the flag is harmful to adults is the biggest lie and was long ago determined by the courts to be protected by the 1st amendment.

Nope. The Supreme court has no authority to change the Constitution.

To then claim the NY case sets precedent for the country in noncustodial cases is beyond belief and I don't think you really believe it. You get caught up in your arguments that you make personal crusades.

Kettle logic. You are describing yourself again here.

 

[gemini104104]

Lots of the super patriots on JPP don't seem confident, and none of them were willing to back up their big mouths with action on 1/6.

Poll finds 65% of Republicans say they don’t believe Biden’s election was legitimate
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/p...ve-bidens-election-was-legitimate-01612570478

So if the election wasn't legitimate, then how come none of the super patriots who claim it wasn't showed up to DC on 1/6 to do anything about it?

Not fighting election theft is anti-American.

Actually tRump sold his soul to the devil decades ago, and at stealing the souls of his brainwashed and insurrectionist cult followers and the now so-called repuke party of un American sedition as in the tRump style of Don the soul stealing con.

 

[Flash]

She can teach her child anything like that of the sort. YOU do not get to assign 'harm'. You are not the king.

But the court can remove the child from the mother's custody if living with her is not in the best interest of the child. Harm is an issue in child custody.

However, it doesn't matter if there is "harm" when a person displays a flag or symbol others object to. Our freedom of expression gives us the freedom to display a Confederate or Nazi flag or symbol or burn an American flag in protest.

 

[Flash]

A court can do nothing to reduce conflict between parents.

But they can (and did) order her to remove the rock if it is causing increased conflict between parents. Courts frequently order a parent(s) to take parenting classes which may be aimed at reducing conflict.

In this case one of the factors considered in determining the best interest of the child is whether the parent is fulfilling court ordered actions such as drug or alcohol rehab. In this case one factor against the mother is that she did not attend court mandated parenting classes.

 

[Flash]

Nope. The Supreme court has no authority to change the Constitution.

Federal courts can interpret the Constitution and have done so many times. A court of appeals just struck down the North Carolina anti-abortion law.

You claim the federal courts cannot interpret the Constitution but you wanted them to do just that with the Texas v. PA case. And, you wanted them to interpret it incorrectly by confusing disputes between states with disputes between citizens of different states (neither of which applied in the TX case).

 

[Into the Night]

The court did not order it removed. He said if it was not removed the Family Court would consider it a change in circumstances and "shall factor this into any future best interests analysis."

The Court can factor in the flag painted on a rock and still determine it is in the best interest of the child to remain with the mother.

Most importantly, this is not a 1st amendment case but a family court custody action. Outside the narrowly tailored factors of this case all U. S. residents (citizens or non-citizens) have the absolute right to display whatever symbol they choose.

We all know these rights are not absolute, but displaying a flag or symbol is not one of the exceptions to freedom of expression. And you know we were discussing the general issue and not custody cases. In the last case you presented you claimed the judge did not allow a couple to display the flag but when we read the case he only ordered it be moved a certain distance away because the couple had been harassing their neighbors unrelated to the flag.

No matter how much you try to weasel out of this it remains a fact that everybody is free to display whatever symbols they choose outside of any conduct not related to the content of the free expression.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please describe where the words 'free expression' or a 'right of free expression' occurs in this amendment.
Note that this amendment does not apply to the State of Texas at all.

 

[Into the Night]

But the court can remove the child from the mother's custody if living with her is not in the best interest of the child. Harm is an issue in child custody.

However, it doesn't matter if there is "harm" when a person displays a flag or symbol others object to. Our freedom of expression gives us the freedom to display a Confederate or Nazi flag or symbol or burn an American flag in protest.

Please describe where this 'freedom of expression' comes from.