this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
715 points (98.5% liked)

politics

18651 readers
4100 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Jay Ashcroft flopped when faced with the most dreaded predicament amongst grandstanding blowhards: a follow-up question

Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft’s attempt to justify his ludicrous threat to have President Joe Biden removed from the state’s electoral ballot spiraled into chaos over the most basic of questions: “How so?”

During a Monday interview with CNN’s Boris Sanchez, the Republican was asked how he justified his threats to have Biden removed from the state’s ballot in retaliation for recent attempts to remove Trump from state ballots on grounds that his actions in the aftermath of the 2020 election constitute insurrection. The constitutionality of such a removal will soon be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

“What would then be your justification for removing Joe Biden from the ballot in Missouri. Has he engaged in your mind in some kind of insurrection?” Sanchez asked.

“There have been allegations that he’s engaged in insurrection,” Ashcroft replied. He was then met with the most dreaded predicament amongst grandstanding blowhards: a follow-up question.

“How so?” Sanchez asked, prompting Ashcroft to demand that Sanchez stop interrupting him. “You can’t say something like that and not back it up,” Sanchez countered.

“You interrupted me before I could back it up,” a flustered Ashcroft complained. “Are you scared of the truth?”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 201 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Ashcroft: "Are you scared of the truth?"

Sanchez: "Oh, I am not terrified of the truth at all, seems like you might be."

You need to watch those clips in the Xitter link. Sanchez is on fucking fire and does not let up.

[–] [email protected] 126 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (8 children)

I'll watch it somewhere, but it's not going to be at TwitX.

Edit here: https://youtu.be/pIsVB-H_M_8?feature=shared

The most relevant part starts around 4:22 but the whole thing is good (well, up until the YouTuber jumps in with his take, which fortunately is after the CNN segment)

[–] [email protected] 50 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Holy shit that was embarrassing for Jay Ashcroft. He proved he's a legal scholar equivalent of a nepo baby because he is so grossly incompetent at understanding how state law works. If this guy was your attorney, the very real question of capability and competency would come up.

Hopefully his dad will help him understand the law better because having 2 J Ashcrofts be that hilariously dumb is a bad look.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I've heard better arguments from an L1 than this bozo. But you know what they say: if the law is on your side, pound the law. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If neither is on your side, pound the table. All he has is the table.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago

He tried to pound the table and missed

[–] [email protected] 28 points 7 months ago

Thanks for the non-shitter link

[–] [email protected] 25 points 7 months ago

Fantastic. 🍿

I also immediately switched off when the YouTuber started talking.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Jesus Christ it’s like these people are in preschool or something

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago

In the sense of being genuinely ignorant of the proper way to act, no. In the sense of being petulant brats throwing a tantrum, yes.

[–] pelespirit 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Except for the youtuber take, it's great.

Edit: Thinking about the video again and how the dude thought that it wasn't tried in a court of law. It absolutely was tried in a court of law and I have no idea why people aren't talking about it.

The Colorado judge said that Trump committed insurrection but it wasn't their place to take him off. The Colorado Supreme Court said, yes he committed insurrection and it was their place to take him off. So, he was tried and convicted by judges to have committed insurrection.

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213961050/colorado-judge-finds-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-ruling-by-colorados-supreme-court-removing-trump-from-state-ballot

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago

"b-b-but, but twump was taken off for allegations, and allegations mean stuff someone said, so I heard someone say Biden bad so slippery slope then I take bidens name off"

He said "well if they do it, slippery slope, I'll do it!" He SERIOUSLY used a well known logical fallacy to prove his point.

my grasp upon my own native tongue is a failure, as I simply don't have the words to describe the level of idiocy we see regularly from republicans.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago

I couldn't get over his use if the word "extrajudicial" to describe what's happening in court cases. What a bumbling moron.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

BTC is actually a pretty well established political YT'er and has some great rundowns of the political climate. I'm sure you'd change your tune if you watched a few vids.

[–] eestileib 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

He's got a very intense delivery style that comes off very used-car-salesman to me. I don't think he's wrong about stuff, I just don't enjoy watching his presentation style.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

I haven't watched any of that guy's videos, but from your description it at least sounds preferable to the dangerously apologistic "both-sides-ism" of most corporate news media!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

But I don't want to watch any Youtubers talk. They are all annoying, and I don't care to see their talking faces.

Any information that they could present by talking it to a camera with their face, could be more efficiently delivered as a blog post. There's no reason but self-promotion for these people to be talking to their camera. Videos that show things happening, and are about actual stuff, are what Youtube should be for. Not a bunch of talking heads giving their opinions to a camera.

[–] [email protected] 96 points 7 months ago (1 children)

We need more journalism that pushes back like this.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

We certainly do, but we shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that would accomplish much with these fuckers. They'll just start avoiding the journalists that refuse to stay neutral or lob them softballs.

It's not like their supporters are going to shame them for doing that, either. I'm shocked any Republican talks to any reporter that isn't from Fox News anymore.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

deleted by creator

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

They already do avoid most journalists, for precisely that reason. Neutrality, to the insane Republican party, is the same thing as a far left bias.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

Hell even within Fox news... Shepard Smith was one of a handful of actual journalists at Fox news, surrounded entirely by opinion shows.

Fox news viewers HATED Shepard Smith because he was "too opinionated."

I can't stand this reality.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

I'm sure they dream of a day in the not-to-distant future where they can just have journalists like this killed.