Replies

The only reason the democRATS got Biden across the finish line in this election as the "winner" was because they stole the election from Trump, who won it fairly.

Had they thought Trump was going to win again Hillary, the same theft would have happened. But they thought Hillary would win easily on her own against the newcomer Trump, so they didn't cheat enough to drag her sorry ass across the finish line. Trump won and they've been pissed ever since.

This is why the election steal against Trump in 2020 was so massive. They overshot the mark, trying to make sure Biden would win.

But as in anything the democRATS touch, they do too much of it and ruin whatever they're trying to "fix".

They are like a cook in the kitchen preparing a dish that requires just a pinch of salt. They're mentality tells them if a pinch is good, then pouring in a whole container of salt is better. The dish is ruined.

Republicans can never let Biden be seen as President....ever. Just like Democrats did to Trump.

That would entail controlling “the media.” Which Democrats do, and Republicans don’t.
The sovereign remedy for this problem is for Republican office-holders to sue for libel, in the teeth of the illegitimate New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision which makes it essentially impossible for such suits to proceed.
Justice Scalia explained why Sullivan was wrong, and Justice Thomas wants to overturn it. Sullivan was handed down in 1964 by the Warren Court, and it was a disgraceful unanimous decision based on flawed (well, it was written by Wm. Brennan) legal reasoning:
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”
Now we all love us some freedom of speech and press, but the conceit that 1A touched libel law at all was novel in 1964. The reason is quite simple: the Bill of Rights was designed to reify existing rights, and not to modify any of them.
We know that because the framers of the unamended constitution (uncapitalized because it was then unratified 😣) didn’t put it in the original, and only added it under political duress from the Antifederalists. Being accused of changing any right at all was the very last thing they wanted to risk because the legitimacy of the new federal government was still hanging in the balance.
The BoR should be understood as consisting of two parts
Amendments 1 thru 8, which enumerate specific rights which Americans were concerned about at the time, and
Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
and
Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
which articulate the intent of the Federalists WRT the issue of rights in general. They articulate, that is, what the Federalists wanted people to assume when they called for the ratification of the document in the first instance.
So the true meaning of the BoR is that “if a right isn’t specifically mentioned in the Constitution, then the Constitution does not affect it at all.” The states, under (if that is the word) the Articles of Confederation had libel laws, and those laws were not touched by the Constitution. Any more than pornography laws were.
In handing down Sullivan the Warren Court trampled the original meaning of the BoR.
The reality, we all know, is that journalists - that Democrats of all stripe - love emergencies. And since journalists and Democrat office holders are birds of the same feather, there is never occasion for a Democrat to need to sue for libel. Republicans, OTOH, are routinely libeled - and inhibiting libel suits damages the public discourse by granting journalists undue influence.
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. — Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
People are disabusing themselves, painfully, of the notion that journalists are reliably truth-tellers. Absent the threat of libel, there is no reason for the non-card-carrying Democrats in the journalism profession to restrict themselves to the truth any more than a Democrat senator speaking on the floor of the Senate must do so.