DARVO (an acronym for "Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender") is a reaction that perpetrators of wrongdoing may display in response to being held accountable for their behavior. It is a common manipulation strategy of psychological abusers. The right-wing thrives because it is allowed to abuse with impunity.
The right/bigots is always talking about the gay agenda. We don't have one. We just want to live our lives. Its the right who has an agenda. They worked hard to rig the court and are now making up lies to take to the court so the LGBTQ rights can be taken away. They want us back in the closet. And it's not just the LGBTQ community that they are looking to strip rights from. Non-christians, women, minorities, and workers to name a few.
Every accusation seems to be a projection from the right wing. They claim an agenda from their targets so that when they are accused of an agenda they can point to their own claims and say “We are just responding”
It also seems that their imagination is so limited; that when they are pressed to create something their opponents would do, they use one of their own actions or desires.
Also if their own actions or desires are so awful when projected onto their opponents; what does that say about them.
The right/bigots is always talking about the gay agenda. We don't have one.
Okay, but you can tell me what the gay agenda really is. Is it like the Jew agenda? Seems like that one came up a lot before people switched to talking about the gay agenda.
Melissa Gira Grant of the New Republic contacted Stewart, using the email and phone number included in the lawsuit. He denies having sent that request, pointing out that he is already married, to a woman.
Person whose name and phone number appears in lawsuit is contacted, denies making a request, is married to woman.
As an American, I look around today and realize that a polite insistence on "don’t feed the trolls" is in large part how we got where we’re at today.
That could very well be rewritten as "don’t challenge the ideas espoused by trolls."
So I think I'm going to continue to correct blatant misinformation, and if you don't like that, you can feel free to hover over my name and block me forever. AWESOME! 👍
I mean this case according to some who have a law background have called into question the standing on which this case was even brought forward. The initial request of the so called web developer does not even seem to exist as stated. It was an intial inquiry by a straight individual who did not even request a web page designed for a homosexual wedding. Nor has the individual who may or may not have made the offending request been a party to the case other than in name. The so called web developer also seems to have a questionable existence as they seem so deeply intermeshed with a religious conservative activist group that they seem part of the same entity. And could at a slightly closer look seen to be just a front entity for such activist group to trigger such a lawsuit.
The court should have passed on this case and it should have gone back down to a lower court and standing should have been better established. This case was just put together to create this type of ruling in a favorable court. Not a pursuit of justice or a clarifying of rights.
I am not a lawyer, and I know next to nothing about the law but this case stinks to high heaven.
What's really cool is that if you look at any of the landmark decisions of this court, you will find olympic level mental gymnastics to justify those decisions. Like, sure, you can be a regular person and look at the decisions and go "well that's unjust" but what's really rad is that when you look at the "logic" they used to arrive at those decisions, it'll just piss you off more! Strict Scrutiny podcast does a great job of highlighting just how this court does not give a fuck about a century or two of history.
He’s never made a mistake in his life, never broken a law, never lost money unless someone else was a crook, never been outsmarted because he’s the smartest human ever, never touched a woman who didn’t want his touch because he’s the sexiest man alive, and never lost an election unless it was stolen from him.
How could he lose an election, when no-one anywhere would vote against him, because he’s Donald Trump.
Well, to be frank, he was responsible for many things, but I don't think there was anything (at least currently publicly available) that he had part in planning January 6th.
[Guliani] was responsible for many things, but I don't think there was anything (at least currently publicly available) that he had part in planning January 6th.
@takeda He did, and there is:
“[Guliani] was definitely intoxicated,” Jason Miller, a senior Trump campaign advisor, said in a recorded deposition that was shown publicly for the first time on Monday during the Jan. 6 committee’s second public hearing. Giuliani wanted Trump to ignore the math and declare victory, immediately. “‘We need to go and say that we won,’” Miller recalled Giuliani saying, and that anyone who disagreed “was being weak.”
That same night, Trump’s campaign manager, Bill Stepien, had a tense meeting with the president in which he counseled him that “the votes were still being counted” and “it was too early to call the race.” Stepien had warned the president that key mail-in voting tallies coming in later on election night would likely weigh toward Joe Biden, as Trump had told his supporters not to trust mail-in ballots. Trump “thought I was wrong, and he told me so,” Stepien said.
The two scenes demonstrated a central thesis that the Jan. 6 Committee worked to convey to the American public on Monday: that Trump had plenty of advisers trying to convince him of the truth, but that he willfully chose to listen to those telling him what he wanted to hear.
Trump ultimately followed Giuliani’s plan and declared victory early in the morning on November 4, 2020, when the outcome of the election was still unclear. Trump delivered the speech from the East Room of the White House, calling the election “a fraud” and saying, “we were getting ready to win this election—frankly, we did win this election.” source
I don't normally find myself agreeing with Hasan, but I feel like this bears repeating:
"Be afraid. This is on the verge of happening 18 months from now," tweeted MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan. "Now ask yourself this question: are cautious, in-denial, business-as-usual establishment Dems equipped, or even willing, to address this anti-democratic, autocratic threat?"
salon.com
Oldest