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

politics

19144 readers
2457 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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] 126 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (7 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 10 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 10 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 10 months ago

He tried to pound the table and missed

[–] [email protected] 28 points 10 months ago

Thanks for the non-shitter link

[–] [email protected] 25 points 10 months ago

Fantastic. 🍿

I also immediately switched off when the YouTuber started talking.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 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 10 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 10 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.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 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 10 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 10 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.