ChiGoose

“Propaganda […] often operates through inflammatory speech, stirring hostility and manipulating emotions, and displacing reasoned public debate with fear and division.”

I mean, if you’re comparing the McCabe prosecution to the Smith ones (which you did), you absolutely were.

Frankly, I would question someone if they came to me arguing that Apples = Oranges.

Smith secured indictments and the prosecutions were shut down not because of legal shortcomings but because of politics. The prosecutions of McCabe couldn’t even get indictments. They were just a stunt for the ignorant. But if boots need to be licked, good to know you’ve got it covered.

I imagine this will be about as successful as the prosecution of Andrew McCabe. But the usual crowd will eat it up for sure

Making Grok less woke resulted in it going full on Nazi and fantasizing about rape? A bit on the nose, but MAGA never has been much for subtlety.

That's a good thought exercise. Imagine Congress passed a law that nobody was allowed to own a gun unless they were a registered member of a state-regulated militia. All gunowners who did not meet this standard were to turn over their guns which would then be melted down. The NRA (and others) would sue, saying that this law violated the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. They would also likely ask the court to enjoin the enforcement of this law until the constitutionality was resolved. I think it's more than reasonable for the court to grant that injunction. Confiscating and destroying people's property would cause harm that wouldn't be easily reversed should the law later be found to be unconstitutional. Therefore, preventing the enforcement of the law until the constitutional issue is resolved makes a lot of sense. Same in the case you provided: there is a suit alleging a provision of the law is unconstitutional (violating the prohibition of bills of attainder as opposed to 2nd Amendment violation) so the court is preventing enforcement of that specific provision until it can address the constitutional issue. Seems incredibly reasonable to me. Not a deep state thing, just a logical way to work through the issue.

The allegation is that a section of the bill is written to specifically target Planned Parenthood in violation of the Constitution's prohibition of bills of attainder. You can read the filing here.

Wrong (but nobody is surprised at this). They claim that the provisions are constructed as a bill of attainder.

What is the claim being made by the plaintiffs in the case? “Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”

This coming from the guy who believes that laws supersede the Constitution…

Hey, quick question for you: do laws supersede the constitution or does the constitution supersede laws?

MAGA actually understand the law and Constitution challenge (impossible)

Personally, I wonder how much of what stability the market has shown is due to investors not believing we’d be stupid enough to keep doing this.

Really not beating the allegations, huh?