Profiles in Courage: Liz Cheney

Politics and Social Issues
83

Apparently she was freely elected to represent the people in Wyoming since 2017.

Moreover, she is an attorney and a member in good standing with the bar. Apparently she has never done anything illegal during her tenure.

Ask how many Republican Trump supporting lawyers have been disbarred .

The case for disbarring Rudy Giuliani, other Trump lawyers—and even some lawmakers.

But focusing solely on Giuliani would belie the depth of wrongdoing that has occurred at the President’s behest. Giuliani did not act alone. More than 20 additional campaign attorneys worked to advance the President’s meritless lawsuits. Sidney Powell and Lin Wood parroted far-right talking points and brought claims meant to advance the President’s lies and conspiracy theories.

Recognizing this, requests for Trump’s attorneys to be disbarred have been submitted in jurisdictions across the country. And in fact, judges themselves have begun holding these attorneys accountable. In Delaware Superior Court, for example, a judge removed Wood from a case, noting Wood’s role in contributing to the Capitol riot in addition to Wood’s “toxic” conduct. These are important, needed developments.

The seriousness of the harm that the President’s actions have brought, however, demands that the entire legal community take even broader action to protect the ethical standards of the profession.

A total of 126 House Republicans, many of whom are attorneys, signed on to a widely derided lawsuit filed in the U.S. Supreme Court that sought to overturn the election by blocking the results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The suit was spearheaded by the Texas attorney general and endorsed by well over a dozen additional Republican attorneys general—though not the Republican attorney general of Georgia, who called the suit “constitutionally, legally, and factually wrong.” To no surprise, the justices swiftly rejected the suit.

Kudos to the Attorney General of Georgia. Another principled person, regardless of political affiliation.

Have you hitched your wagon to this seditious conspiracy ???

Liz Cheney is not part of this crowd. She is a principled person, regardless of her political affiliation.

84

That’s not how voting works. No one is required to march in lockstep with a President.

85

Sorry mike - mods have limited me posting in Russian threat. You know all that talk about free speech and open discussion??

Any way, just wanted to say Malala is a Marxist and as soon as she expressed this in her speeches together with her heavy criticism of Obama fior using terrorism in drone attacks she was drop faster that a blink of an eye and was no more the darling of the western :us: media

image
image750×1334 141 KB

86

That’s not true. When you give your word to the voters in Wyoming your expected to live up to your word. May not be true where you live. But in Wyoming, your word is everything. Liz did great at first. Was following the will of the people. Then she caught the DC swamp, and she was what mattered, not the people she was representing.

(CNN) - Liz Cheney is going to New Hampshire. She’s getting her political operation in order. And she’s raising money like mad from icons of the Republican Party.

The Wyoming congresswoman is clearly exploring her political options and power well beyond her congressional district, even if she’s not talking openly about a run for president.

87

Appreciate the data. I have been thinking about taking a break from here myself because of the way I see people being treated.

88

I can see their hostile, shutdown responses

89

I think you’re sincere Mike, but I also think you are way off. Your conception of what she promised doesn’t line up with reality. I know Trump voters who question a lot of what he does. That’s what thinking people do. It’s what they expect from their elected leaders too.

90

You know, it’s possible to disagree and not complain about it, not claim there is something wrong with the people who disagree with you. Not dismiss a source but speak to facts. Etc etc

91

You spend a lot of time on the attack but you never ever provide any examples of what you are talking about

92

I’ve been putting notes directly on your posts. How much more specific can I be?

93

Specifics about complaining, dismissing a source and telling people there is something wrong with them

94

How are you kidding, Mike is about as sincere as Trump Three Dollar Bills.

Notice how he didn’t stop a beat to consider what the dark skinned have been subjected too.

Mike thinks Cheney is supposed to march goose step with the totalitarian trumpster, and is proud of it as he passes along one line of misinformation, after misinformation.

I hope you do leave Mike, because you merely offer malicious one-sided indecency and pretend it’s a discuss, though you never process a damned bit of information that’s shared with you - never have, at least not around here.

As they said to Joe before he was shown the door
Mike have you no . . .

95

Different definition of sincere.

Like thatoneguy, he is actually prejudice, not like a decision he made but it’s how he feels about the world, that there are types of people, related to skin color and ancestry, and they have inherent traits. So, his logic is internally valid, once you accept his premises.

You can only see the flaws when you ask him to do something, like defend how the rest of the world should allow atrocities to continue in one country, because of their “traditions”. He doesn’t defend it, he brings up a different country and waves a hand and says, “see how that went”.

I think there is a misperception in the culture today, that if correct information was presented in some consistent fashion, then misinformation would disappear. Or, that anyone who repeats misinformation, knows it is misinformation. I don’t thinkk that’s true.

There are definitely people who know what they are doing, but even they have some sort of justification, some sort of “we have to do this first so we can get to the better world later” kind of twisted plan.

96

So that makes it okay? Another item to be normalized as the world blunders forward into its self destruction?

What to do? Simply stand by and watch the crazy making go ballistic?

Speaking of moral duty to America and its voters, how about this latest round of insanity from the great trumpster and his warriors :

97

The substance of trump.

Incidentally, List of journalists killed in Russia - Wikipedia

98

I’ve answered this question from you about a dozen times.

No. That’s the answer. No.

Have you heard the one? Where a guy on the internet says that people will change their mind if you present the proper to them. Then another guy says, no, that’s not true, and backs it up with data, studies, peer-reviewed stuff. And the first guy says, yeah, well, I still think it’s true.

99

What I see in Mike, and others like him, is a complete disconnect from history. We all see actions taken now, by people who are currently under the threat of official government arms and the businesses that government protects, like wage theft, stop and frisk, bail, fines for polluting instead of just not polluting. But people like Mike don’t see the threats, just the actions. They make up any number of reasons for why their actions are unwarranted, that they are asking for things they don’t deserve.

Worse, the more obvious history of murders of the ancestors of those people, the conspiracies to keep them from buying homes and getting jobs, the terrorism of fires and bricks through windows, those are somehow different. They say those were just our “culture”, it’s “how things were”. They weren’t “protests”. If it’s acknowledged, and usually it’s only partially acknowledged, it’s now considered done, over, and not something that affects people today. Even though people who experienced are still alive. Even though you can look at a “red-lining” map and drive around and see what those neighborhoods look like today.

One way I’ve tried to understand this is to go back to when I was younger before I understood my own history. What were the things the elders were trying to tell me? What advantage was I living off of, that came at the price of someone else’s disadvantage? That adds up pretty fast once you see it, but the problem is, what do I do about it? And I know the answer is not “nothing”.

100

What I see in Lausten, and others like him is a person living in a world that are trying to recreate history instead of learning and progressing by the knowledge of our history. The rules of laws started in pre-history and were worked on and improved on and tested repeatedly. The Egyptian civilization was the envy of the Greeks, Romans, and Holy Catholic empire.

What can we learn from our past? Well from the Egyptians we learned that we need to keep our world in balance. The pharaoh would travel up and down the Nile from temple to temple to check and see if the people of each temple area were well fed, happy, healthy, secure, entertained, and loved. If not, then the pharaoh would rebalance their world by taking from the temple and giving to the people. This rebalancing occurred about once every twenty years, or once a generation. The temples were governing the people and greed would get the best of the temples. The pharaoh’s job was to take from the rich and balance the wealth to the point that happiness would be back in peoples lives again.

The Greeks showed us that we could use the rules of laws and try and keep the balancing taking place by laws. And they wrote the books on how civilizations can do this. The Romans built upon this Hellenistic methods and expanded the management of the laws at the local and upper government levels. Jesus’ idea was to change the upper government into two branches. One that enforced the laws and one that made sure the laws were followed as written in stone. This was done to keep the enforcers from creating a swamp out of the laws. The Romans realized that the Egyptian empire used morals to help fight the human greed and ended up helping to create Christianity to help the Rules of Law work.

The Holy Roman Empire shows us what happens if the people’s world gets out of balance and the government turns into a greedy swamp. A civilization requires all ingredients that have been proven by history to work as past knowledge has revealed it can.

There is a reason America has been a great nation. And it is not because Americans are more knowable or harder workers that other people of the world. It is because we inherited the system the Greeks, Romans, Jesus, Plato, Henry More, Oliver Goldsmith, Samuel Johnson, Edward Gibbon, Adam Smith, David Hume, Benjamin Franklin, William Blackstone, Jefferson, John Locke and countless other worked at building.

Lausten takes our history and makes it fit what and who he wants to discredit. That is wrong on so many levels. All Americans have been given this gift of civilization. It is our job to keep it working the way it was designed and proven to work.
Items history has shown that are needed to make the system work better.
Civilization
Top common factors

  1. High protein
  2. Happiness/entertainment
  3. Rules of Laws
  4. High knowledge level
  5. Capitalist system
  6. Control of greed
  7. Minimal caste
  8. Good monetary system
  9. Belief in certain deity
  10. Medical
  11. Security

My viewpoint from just being accused of having a complete disconnect from history.

101

I’m sticking with what I said

102

Didn’t have to tell me, I knew you would. Same as all priests. It is hard to discard an upper caste belief. I can’t imagine Hilary having any other viewpoint than she does, either.