Tiger Daly

As if they’d let you secede.

Is anyone else bothered that there are two number ones and one number two represented?

Being tech savvy doesn’t automatically bestow knowledge of good opsec.

I wouldn’t assume that a guy who builds top-fuel dragster engines could tell me how to avoid a speed trap.

That’s just a “best by” date. You can still eat it, though it might taste a bit stale.

I’ll indulge you one more time in this comment chain.

Or is this one of those situations where you think the world runs on “should” and not “is?”

If I were as inclined to feign offense, I’d cite this as an implication that I’m someone who cannot differentiate reality from fantasy. Some might even call such an implication a thinly veiled insult, but only if they didn’t intend to throw rocks before hiding their hands.

Instead of interpreting it in such a way and clutching my pearls about it, I chose to meet you with the same energy.

Your point regarding the communities you moderate is 1) irrelevant and 2) not a road worth going down, regardless. It’s at best an attempt at a flex, and does not belong in this conversation.

Back to the actual matter, every statement you’ve made in these comments, barring your most recent response, absolutely exhibits a dictionary definition defeatist viewpoint. Why take umbrage to having it pointed out as such?

This marks the end of my engagement with you in this chain of comments. Any further responses you make are for your own gratification.

I responded to you in kind. If you consider that insulting, then examine your own contribution.

You’ve graciously answered my question by way of your response. Thank you for that. I wish you the best in your march into defeatism, and sincerely hope you’ll refrain from dragging others along for the ride.

Then it’s option two for you, is it? The one where we allow bad actors to dictate because we believe they won’t play fair?

If that’s the case, you don’t have anything to worry about because all is already lost. “Despair is a narcotic. It lulls the mind into indifference.”

Or is this one of those situations where you’ve already seen that you’re wrong, but you’re too stubborn to admit it and compulsively need to have the last word?

I addressed what you’re alluding to. Second paragraph, third sentence. If we reach a point where precedent doesn’t matter regarding eligibility, all bets are off anyway.

I said nothing at all about how the courts would rule, only that we have prior examples of how eligibility has been determined.

If we want to talk about a sane world where rules matter, the question is settled. If you instead prefer to lament the possibility that those rules will be ignored, twisted, or rewritten, then it logically follows that any candidate will be subject to bad faith jurisprudence. At that point, all bets are off anyway, and the “question” of AOC’s eligibility as a candidate has no bearing.

Fret and panic if you feel that it’s your best course of action, but poisoning the discourse with that sort of nonsense is counterproductive.

The three basic requirements are clearly laid out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Neither the 14th or 22nd Amendments apply.

It’s cut and dried, with precedent. There is nothing remotely questionable about her eligibility. If the concern is that the opposition party doesn’t care about precedent, then the rulebook is completely tossed out anyway and we’re dealing with a different conversation altogether.

Anyone pushing the narrative that she does not meet the basic requirements is either engaging in pointless hand wringing, expressing ignorance about the requirements, or actively spreading a falsehood.

Or you might not be.

AOC is eligible. She would meet the requirements set forth in the Constitution at the time of her inauguration.

People continue to spread misinformation about her eligibility.

What do I get?