Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

[Bob Butler]

After I lost power Monday, I caught Rachel Madow's show today. In her first segment she went on about many media folks noting Trump was echoing the words of dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin. After folks pointed out he was doing it, he doubled down on it. It was almost like he thought hate, oppression and killing of races who were different could attract people. Thing is, it is working. Trump is gaining support by copying fascist language.

Rachel couldn't understand it.

[Bob Butler]

The Colorado Supreme Court in calling Trump an insurrectionist and removing him from the ballot is interesting. I thought this the obvious response to the 14th Amendment section three, and am glad the court underlined the meaning of the text and intent of the authors. The US Supreme Court would have to fight quite a bit uphill to reverse Colorado.

The guesses on how the Supreme Court might jump are all over the place. Some say the court is overtly political and linked to the Republican cause. I have noted that the courts generally have generally rejected the Big Lie. Loyalty to Trump does not seem to include ruling against fact. I have guessed that the Federalist Society judges are deeply into the plain meaning of the text and intent of the authors, both of which clearly reject Trump serving again. Also some suggest the 14th presents another way for the Republicans to get rid of Trump, something some may want but which they have declined several times to do. They want to keep the base too badly.

Worth watching.

Another facet is that the 14th section 3 explicitly forbids Trump from serving again (at the moment), but does not forbid his name from appearing on the ballot. Colorado law does, and the Supreme Court can't touch state law. 14/3 does forbid Roberts from swearing in Trump unless Jan 6 is no longer considered an insurrection, which several courts now have.

[jdcpapa]

The Colorado Supreme Court in calling Trump an insurrectionist and removing him from the ballot is interesting. I thought this the obvious response to the 14th Amendment section three, and am glad the court underlined the meaning of the text and intent of the authors. The US Supreme Court would have to fight quite a bit uphill to reverse Colorado.

The guesses on how the Supreme Court might jump are all over the place. Some say the court is overtly political and linked to the Republican cause. I have noted that the courts generally have generally rejected the Big Lie. Loyalty to Trump does not seem to include ruling against fact. I have guessed that the Federalist Society judges are deeply into the plain meaning of the text and intent of the authors, both of which clearly reject Trump serving again. Also some suggest the 14th presents another way for the Republicans to get rid of Trump, something some may want but which they have declined several times to do. They want to keep the base too badly.

Worth watching.

Another facet is that the 14th section 3 explicitly forbids Trump from serving again (at the moment), but does not forbid his name from appearing on the ballot. Colorado law does, and the Supreme Court can't touch state law. 14/3 does forbid Roberts from swearing in Trump unless Jan 6 is no longer considered an insurrection, which several courts now have.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/bl ... ore-253983

[Bob Butler]

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/bl ... ore-253983

Oh, come on. They describe themselves as a rag tag bunch. I'll go with professor Tribe.

[jdcpapa]

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/bl ... ore-253983

Oh, come on. They describe themselves as a rag tag bunch. I'll go with professor Tribe.

The Colorado Supreme Court's ruling in conclusion:

Therefore, to maintain the status quo pending any review by the Supreme Court, we stay our ruling until January 4, 2024. (the day before the Secretary's deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot). If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024 then the stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump's name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court.

[Bob Butler]

The DoJ policy has been to arrest and prosecute people who actually trespass, murder, do vandalism and violence, but pretty much ignore people who just threaten to do same. Of late, there have been threats made against the Colorado Supreme Court justices, and calls for a civil war? Does anyone expect arrests made?

How seriously do we take them? If there are no consequences for making a threat, why not? If people make threats with no intention of carrying them out, should they be taken seriously? Should the courts and law enforcement agencies?

For example the Georgia election workers received a large number of well documented threats. What was actually carried out? Yes, their address became known and some demonstrated and threatened there, but what was the ratio of threatened stuff to actual?

I don't feel personally threatened, but I'm wondering how much others should be.

[Bob Butler]

MSNBC recently telecast a version of Rachel Maddow’s Ultra book tour. She brought out one interesting point. At most eras in American history there was an attempt to dominate someone. The emphasis was on the domination of the Pacific islands and the Trail of Tears, but you could look at the slaves, the taking of native lands, the exclusion of asian women, the Mexico land grabs and see the same thing.

The unusual assertion was that at each of these grabs, there were people aware of it, publicizing it, attempting to end it. If one thinks of the January 6 Committee or the Colorado Supreme Court as unusual, not so. There was always someone there. It would be absurd to be trying to suppress minority or force one’s own culture on others without somebody noticing and raising a ruckus. As an informal rule of American history, if you are against freedom, somebody notices.

It continues always, but past battles are often eventually won.

[Bob Butler]

Pardon, I took a few days off for the holidays and to think a few things through. Continuing…

You say "Murdock said Fox news lied for profit". You have not provided evidence supporting your claim. Your post below confirms Fox is in the business of making money, a profit. It is not evidence that Murdock lied. Your cite below does not support your claim that "Murdock said Fox news lied for profit".

What is a mindset? It is a shortcut. One doesn’t have to think things through independently, but can go along with a greater perspective thought out in advance.

A mindset is self defending. At one level one just can’t think things that conflict with the mindset using the mindset. A contradictory fact or statement just doesn’t exist.

Mindsets often fit general categories such as political, religious or scientific. Of these, the scientific is most objective, but on the other hand certain moral problems cannot be resolved through experiment and observation.

Given that background, the key statement agreed to by by Murdoch in the Dominion - Fox News defamation trial is “It is not red or blue, it is green." I interpret red and blue together as politics, and green as financial. In a defamation suit, this would mean that the defamation was about money, not politics. Fox News had (has?) a policy of telling people what they wanted to hear, by that statement for financial rather than political reasons. He settled with Dominion for $787 million to avoid having that finding being on court records.

Now this is a progressive reading of “It is not red or blue, it is green." You hear that statement, and you jump right quickly to that conclusion. Obviously, others don’t. I interpret this as your mindset cannot process the fact that you were lied to for money. As they said in my youth, “that does not compute.”

Given that Murdoch agreed with it, and that he knows Fox News motivation as well as anybody, what is the alternate reasoning? What does the statement mean to you?

[Tom Mazanec]

Bob, I agree with a lot of what you say, except when you try to impose your values on preborn humans. You are fine with fining and imprisoning people who kill a preborn bald eagle or sea turtle (egg), but killing a preborn baby is just fine.

[jdcpapa]

Given that background, the key statement agreed to by by Murdoch in the Dominion - Fox News defamation trial is “It is not red or blue, it is green." I interpret red and blue together as politics, and green as financial. In a defamation suit, this would mean that the defamation was about money, not politics. Fox News had (has?) a policy of telling people what they wanted to hear, by that statement for financial rather than political reasons. He settled with Dominion for $787 million to avoid having that finding being on court records.

In the Fox case, during discovery phase, before the settlement, Murdock admitted to lying on air to increase audience share. ‘It is not red or blue, it is green'

You do not provide any evidence that Murdock admitted to lying about the subject matter. According to your cite, "in a deposition Murdock testified that he believed the 2020 election was fair and had not been stolen from Trump". There is no other reference to him in your article.

The judge stated that: "the statements at issue were dramatically different than the truth. In fact, although it cannot be attributed to Foxes statements, it is note worthy that some Americans still believe the election was rigged".

An attorney for Fox stated: "We never reported that to be true. All we ever did was provide viewers true fact that there were allegations being made. Fox said it was obligated to report on a president who claimed he had been cheated out of an election."

"The larger importance of the settlement is that the high level of protection for news media remains intact for now" said Doreen Weisenhaus an instructor of media at Northwestern University.

Once again, in the Fox case, your cite does not support an admission of guilt.

Now this is a progressive reading of “It is not red or blue, it is green." You hear that statement, and you jump right quickly to that conclusion. Obviously, others don’t. I interpret this as your mindset cannot process the fact that you were lied to for money. As they said in my youth, “that does not compute.”

Given that Murdoch agreed with it, and that he knows Fox News motivation as well as anybody, what is the alternate reasoning? What does the statement mean to you?

"I interpret this as your mindset cannot process the fact that you were lied to for money."? My "mindset" is that you are disingenuous and that you have failed to provide evidence that Fox and or Murdock lied. Your evidence suggests that Fox and Murdock are in the business of making a profit. It does not support your allegation that Fox reports on what people want to hear. Your evidence supports the fact that Fox reported on the true fact that allegations of a rigged election were made: "We never reported that [the allegations of a rigged election were true] to be true. All we ever did was provide viewers true fact that there were allegations being made. Fox said it was obligated to report on a president who claimed he had been cheated out of an election."

Fox News had (has?) a policy of telling people what they wanted to hear, by that statement for financial rather than political reasons.

Your own cite contradicts this allegation as is quoted above. Fox "reported, on a President who claimed he had been cheated out of an election", for a profit.


This was my response to your previous post:

Your recent cite: "At one point, when asked during the deposition, Murdoch suggested the decision to let Lindell run ads for his company, MyPillow, was a strictly financial—rather than political—move, agreeing with the statement: 'It is not red or blue—it is green,'according to Monday’s court filing."

Your quote is not evidence that Fox lied. It is evidence that Murdock told the truth. Furthermore, your quote is disingenuous because it is taken out of context.