U.S. Electile Dementia paralytica 2024

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by firejuggler

Does an 'civil' conviction automatically revoke civil right in the USA?
(white collar crime v. blue collar one)
If not, then it is possible.

Here in the US, a "civil case" is generally a lawsuit. Civil liability usually means you have to pay money damages, but never involves the threat of jail time. The term "convicted" means convicted of a crime. The major distinction is between misdemeanors (minor offenses) and felonies, for which the punishment generally includes mandatory prison time (which however can be, and often is "suspended.") The distinction between violent and on-violent felonies is immaterial.

Theodore Roosevelt once said something like, "A man who rides a horse and has a gun can rob a train. A man who wears a suit and has a degree can rob the whole railroad."

But either way, the short answer to your question is it would not prevent the person from running for President.

In the present instance, the indictment alleges criminal charges (as opposed to a civil action) against the Personality Cultist-in-Chief. (There is also an ongoing civil case brought by the State of New York which could bankrupt him and his organization, but that's another story.)

Since the criminal case almost certainly will not be decided before next year's general election, he will not have been convicted of any crime, so will not be disqualified from office.

But in any case, even a felony conviction does not seem to be a legal impediment to running for (or AFAIK serving as) President of the United States. [unless of course the sentence prescribed by law includes disqualification from serving].

On October 10, 1798 publisher and "Democratic-Republican" (anti-Federalist) US Representative Matthew Lyon of Vermont was convicted of violating the Sedition Act of 1798. This was a Lèse-majesté law, making public criticism of public officials a crime. Lyon criticized President John Adams in print. Lyon was convicted of violating the Sedition Act, and sentenced to four months imprisonment, with further confinement until he paid a $1000 fine plus court costs.

Lyon was re-elected while he was incarcerated.

After the election of 1800 wound up a tie in the Electoral College, it went to the US House of Representatives. After thirty-five ballots in the US House without deciding the result, Alexander Hamilton threw his support behind Thomas Jefferson. On February 17, 1801 Jefferson was elected on the thirty-sixth ballot. One State's vote that changed was Vermont. For the first thirty-five ballots, Lewis Morris had voted for Aaron Burr and Matthew Lyon for Jefferson, making Vermont's vote "No result." Morris absented himself on the thirty-sixth ballot and Lyon voted for Jefferson, and the tie was broken.

In more recent times, a loony-tunes conspiratorialist and credit card fraudster named Lyndon Larouche ran for President in 1992 while incarcerated for conspiracy, mail fraud, and tax evasion. He had been sentenced to 15 years, and was paroled after five years. He died in 2019.

I note, however, that convicted felons are not allowed to vote until they have served their sentences (including parole). Convicted felons are also not allowed to possess firearms. So a felony conviction does revoke some civil rights.

[Dr Sardonicus]

In what is (hopefully) the final ruling in Lake v. Hobbs (CV 2022-095403), issued the evening of Monday. May 22, 2023, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson rejected Kari Lake's final claim contesting the results of the 2022 Arizona governor's race.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

As to Count III – Signature Verification:
a. The Court DOES NOT find either clear and convincing evidence or a preponderance of
evidence of misconduct in violation of A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(1).

b. The Court DOES NOT find either clear and convincing evidence or a preponderance of
evidence that such misconduct was committed by “an officer making or participating in a
canvass” under A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(1).

c. The Court DOES NOT find either clear and convincing evidence or a preponderance of
evidence that such misconduct did in fact affect the result of the 2022 General Election by
a competent mathematical basis.

Therefore:

IT IS ORDERED: confirming the election of Katie Hobbs as Arizona Governor pursuant
to A.R.S. § 16-676(B).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: that no further matters remain pending, except for costs,
if any, sought by Defendants. In order that an expedited appeal might be taken, Defendants are
ordered to submit a proposed form of judgment with finality language pursuant to Arizona Rule
of Civil Procedure 56(c) by 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, May 23, 2023. Any objection to the proposed
form of judgment and/or statement of costs must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, May 24,
2023. The Court will then enter the judgment required by A.R.S. § 16-676 forthwith.

[Dr Sardonicus]

US Representative Lauren Boebert (R-CO, District 3) is a caricature come to life. She's had an interesting year so far.

In March, she revealed that she was going to become a grandmother in April, because her oldest son Tyler had gotten his girlfriend pregnant. Just like Tyler himself, and his mother, had been conceived. The US Representative said she does not want to "nitpick what the Bible says is right and wrong" in this instance - a stance completely opposite to her public stance on abortion, trans rights, etc.

In May, she announced she was divorcing Jayson, her husband of 18 years, citing "irreconcilable differences" and seeking parental decision-making power and child support.

On June 1, she missed the US House vote to raise the debt ceiling. She lied about this, claiming she had boycotted the vote as a protest. But she had actually been recorded on video running up the steps of the US Capitol building when the vote was called. She was informed that she was too late. She was recorded as asking "They closed it?"

On Sunday, September 10, she and her date, Aspen bar owner Quinn Gallagher, were thrown out of Buell Theater in Denver during a performance of "Beetlejuice." She had been vaping (which she had refused to stop doing at the request of the pregnant woman sitting behind her), photographing the performance (which is not allowed), talking and singing loudly, and engaging in "public displays of affection" with her date that might more accurately be described as public indecency. They were told at intermission to stop their disruptive behavior, but they didn't. Five minutes after intermission, ushers asked them to leave. They refused to get out of their seats until the ushers threatened to call the cops and charge them with trespassing. They then got out of their seats and were escorted out. Boebert asked "Do you know who I am?", declared "I'm going to call the mayor!" and, out in the lobby, showed her Mr. Digit hand puppet to the ushers. A Daily Mail article has all the lurid details, and a picture of her "hanging out" in the lobby and giving the finger to the ushers as she left.

She denied that she was vaping, her flunkies claiming it was the fog machines for the stage. When informed that theater security video put the lie to that story, as well as showing her unseemly behavior with her date, she apologized for her bad behavior and for lying about it.

IMO the only thing she was sorry about was getting caught. I don't know what effect the theater incident will have on her ongoing divorce proceedings, but my guess is, it can't be good for her.

Ms. Boebert just barely won re-election in 2022, despite being the incumbent, and her opponent doing little campaigning. I'm not sure what effect the theater incident might have on her prospects for a third term, but again IMO it can't be good.

[retina]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

Boebert asked "Do you know who I am?

Proper responses to questions like this can be a) No, do you think you are someone special? or b) Sadly, yes, but that doesn't excuse your rude behaviour.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by retina

Proper responses to questions like this can be a) No, do you think you are someone special? or b) Sadly, yes, but that doesn't excuse your rude behaviour.

Peter Cook's response was classic. In a loud voice he asked everyone in the room:

There's a gentleman here who doesn't know who he is. Can anyone help him?

(The pompous asshole on that occasion was male.)

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by xilman

Peter Cook's response was classic. In a loud voice he asked everyone in the room:

There's a gentleman here who doesn't know who he is. Can anyone help him?

(The pompous asshole on that occasion was male.)

The statement in the response is cogent because anyone asking "Do you know who I am?" by way of insinuating that they can make trouble for those enforcing the rules, is a 24-carat jerk. And jerks never understand that they are jerks. So, alas, the answer to the question in the response is "No."

Another possible response would be, "Someone who thinks they're too important for the rules to apply to them." (And in the present instance or a similar situation, it could go on, "But is mistaken, which is why they're being booted out.")

[Dr Sardonicus]

Another caricature come to life, US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA 14th District) recently expressed outrage that Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) had changed the Senate's informal dress code to allow Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) to wear casual attire on the Senate floor.

Originally Posted by Marjorie Taylor Greene on Musk-X

The Senate no longer encoding a dress code for Senators to appease Fetterman is disgraceful.

Dress code is one of society’s standards that set etiquette and respect for our institutions. Stop lowering the bar.

Greene, the Qanon conspiracy loon who showed nude pics of Hunter Biden at a House hearing and screamed at President Biden during the State of the Union Address, actually suffered consequences for a lapse of etiquette on the House floor, which pertained to Lauren Boebert. Greene was heard to tell Boebert "You've been nothing but a little bch to me." The problem was, she said this on the House floor, where such language is deemed unbecoming the dignity of the institution. As a result, she was booted out of the Freedom (is slavery) Caucus.

[M344587487]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

US Representative Lauren Boebert (R-CO, District 3) is a caricature come to life. She's had an interesting year so far.
...
Ms. Boebert just barely won re-election in 2022, despite being the incumbent, and her opponent doing little campaigning. I'm not sure what effect the theater incident might have on her prospects for a third term, but again IMO it can't be good.

So to summarise she's a two-faced douchebag with delusions of grandeur. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be a hindrance for her or to a political career in general.

[Xyzzy]

Somehow this isn't on the news:

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreak...swoman_lauren/

"Think of the children!"

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

The statement in the response is cogent because anyone asking "Do you know who I am?" by way of insinuating that they can make trouble for those enforcing the rules, is a 24-carat jerk. And jerks never understand that they are jerks. So, alas, the answer to the question in the response is "No."

Another possible response would be, "Someone who thinks they're too important for the rules to apply to them." (And in the present instance or a similar situation, it could go on, "But is mistaken, which is why they're being booted out.")

Perhaps recounting the entire exchange might be useful. The material below is not verbatim but certainly captures everything important.


Peter Cook was at a book-signing session and there was a long queue ("line" for my North American readers) of people wishing to have their books signed by the author.

One self-important guy barged to the head of the queue and asked for a signature on his book. Cook politely asked him to join the end of the queue, which prompted the "Do you know who I am?" question. After the reply the same asshole (pardon me, "arsehole", I fear I may be going native) said "Well, fuck you!". Cook's response was another classic: "I'm afraid you will have to join the end of the queue for that too, Sir".


Peter Cook was one of the finest wits and comedians of the 20th century.

[LaurV]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

Somehow this isn't on the news:

Behind a login wall.