Topic: I like how Trump tried to give $1.8B to violent seditionists and even the GOP said nope.
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 weeks ago #135,344
Imagine giving upwards of $30M each to violent white trash who rampaged and shit on the Speaker’s desk because their Orange Demigod lost an election.
Mr. Big Black Friday joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later[^] [v] #1,438,263
The Trump admin is acting like the universe will end in 2028 and the democrats will never lead the country again.
Great bet they’re making. In a 50/50 system that’s existed since the 1850s where the power has always swayed back and forth, bet it never will again in your lifetime.
Great bet they’re making. In a 50/50 system that’s existed since the 1850s where the power has always swayed back and forth, bet it never will again in your lifetime.
(Edited 4 minutes later.)
Mr. Big Black Friday double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,265
In computer science, there’s this thing called branch prediction, and there are one bit and two bit branch predictors. They use it for predicting the result of branch instructions, basically, if you have an if statement somewhere, in assembly that translates to a branch instructions and you can make some optimizations if you can correctly guess what you’re going to need loaded to perform whatever computation comes after the branch. It turns out, one of the simplest ways to predict what happens next is one bit branch prediction which is just assume whatever happens next is what happened last time. Last time there was a presidential election, and the time before that, and the time before that, who won? The party in power or the other one?
…they’re really making a smart move here.
…they’re really making a smart move here.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,266
@1,438,263 (Mr. Big Black Friday)
> The Trump admin is acting like the universe will end in 2028 and the democrats will never lead the country again.
>
> Great bet they’re making. In a 50/50 system that’s existed since the 1850s where the power has always swayed back and forth, bet it never will again in your lifetime.
Like some other poster said, Trump is less a fascist than he is a cut rate Jacob Zuma. He runs everything like his companies - badly. Trump Organization failed in most of its deals but succeeded as a licensing firm.
> The Trump admin is acting like the universe will end in 2028 and the democrats will never lead the country again.
>
> Great bet they’re making. In a 50/50 system that’s existed since the 1850s where the power has always swayed back and forth, bet it never will again in your lifetime.
Like some other poster said, Trump is less a fascist than he is a cut rate Jacob Zuma. He runs everything like his companies - badly. Trump Organization failed in most of its deals but succeeded as a licensing firm.
Mr. Big Black Friday replied with this 3 weeks ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,270
@1,438,265 (Mr. Big Black Friday)
Somehow that’s correct 70% to 80% of the time and two bit branch prediction is correct 80% to 90% of the time.
Somehow that’s correct 70% to 80% of the time and two bit branch prediction is correct 80% to 90% of the time.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 25 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,277
The protesters were exercising political speech. Labeling them as “violent” or “white trash” is dehumanizing and ignores that participants ranged widely in motives and behavior.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,282
Meta joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 20 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,290
@1,438,263 (Mr. Big Black Friday)
What will the Democrats do? Serious question.
They're going to win a landslide in 2028 and then proceed to blow all the political capital on woke tranny shit like they did last time.
What will the Democrats do? Serious question.
They're going to win a landslide in 2028 and then proceed to blow all the political capital on woke tranny shit like they did last time.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 14 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,299
@previous (Meta)
maybe
But let’s hope that they’ve learned their lesson from the failings of the Obama era and the trump 1 era and not rely on idpol and whatever else bullshit they were running on during those times. Theyre the reason we got what we got now.
maybe
But let’s hope that they’ve learned their lesson from the failings of the Obama era and the trump 1 era and not rely on idpol and whatever else bullshit they were running on during those times. Theyre the reason we got what we got now.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,301
@previous (G)
They elected Obama's VP, and then ran him again.
They just made an embarassment out of themselves because they hid the autopsy report from the last election. They finally released it, and it looked like a schizophrenic childmade it with chatgpt. He's fired for the mess, but they refuse to do a real report.
They keep repeating the same strategy, and still won't admit there's a problem.
If the vra ruling doesn't let republicans win, the democrats will sabotage themselves. They never use power to do anything important, and they will never change their platform or message.
They elected Obama's VP, and then ran him again.
They just made an embarassment out of themselves because they hid the autopsy report from the last election. They finally released it, and it looked like a schizophrenic childmade it with chatgpt. He's fired for the mess, but they refuse to do a real report.
They keep repeating the same strategy, and still won't admit there's a problem.
If the vra ruling doesn't let republicans win, the democrats will sabotage themselves. They never use power to do anything important, and they will never change their platform or message.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 19 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,309
I dont care about your tiktok faggotry, op
Mr. Big Black Friday replied with this 3 weeks ago, 14 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,310
@1,438,301 (E)
I find it hilarious how neither democrats nor republicans can realize that Biden won because he wasn’t Trump and Trump won because he wasn’t Biden. Trump isn’t actually popular, a Democrat will probably win because people will be tired of republicans by the time 2028 comes around. If American politics are highly divisive, that means both parties will be unpopular with each other and candidates from the opposite party of the party in power will keep winning. Anyone who tells themselves Biden was popular or Trump is popular is deluding themselves. Obama was significantly more popular than either Trump or Biden.
I find it hilarious how neither democrats nor republicans can realize that Biden won because he wasn’t Trump and Trump won because he wasn’t Biden. Trump isn’t actually popular, a Democrat will probably win because people will be tired of republicans by the time 2028 comes around. If American politics are highly divisive, that means both parties will be unpopular with each other and candidates from the opposite party of the party in power will keep winning. Anyone who tells themselves Biden was popular or Trump is popular is deluding themselves. Obama was significantly more popular than either Trump or Biden.
(Edited 33 seconds later.)
Mr. Big Black Friday double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,311
Plus Trump can’t run again since the American constitution forbids him from running again and the republican majority is far too slim to pass amendments to the constitution without democratic support. You need an supermajority, so it’s just not going to happen. And even if it did, Trump is too old to run again, he’s older than Biden was in his term. If he had a third term, people would start noticing. 2028 is probably going to be Gavin Newsom vs JD Vance.
https://youtu.be/fgdIU7WBt7Y
https://youtu.be/fgdIU7WBt7Y
Anonymous E replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,312
@1,438,310 (Mr. Big Black Friday)
Yes, they didn't care who won the primary because anyone would be better than Trump. So the old guard stayed in power, Biden was part of the Obama admin, and so the ideology didn't change.
The democrats could have tried anything else and the results could have been better, but they kept the same strategy and got the same results.
Idpol is a loser, if the democrats win the midterms they will continue to sabotage themselves.
Trump made sure the Supreme Court is right wing, and they don't need to be reelected, they serve for life.
Yes, they didn't care who won the primary because anyone would be better than Trump. So the old guard stayed in power, Biden was part of the Obama admin, and so the ideology didn't change.
The democrats could have tried anything else and the results could have been better, but they kept the same strategy and got the same results.
Idpol is a loser, if the democrats win the midterms they will continue to sabotage themselves.
Trump made sure the Supreme Court is right wing, and they don't need to be reelected, they serve for life.
Mr. Big Black Friday replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,314
I mean seriously, just google Trump’s peak approval, Biden’s peak approval, and Obama’s peak approval. Trump and Biden aren’t even close, Obama was near 70% approval at one point.
Mr. Big Black Friday double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,315
@1,438,312 (E)
The Supreme Court can change the interpretation of laws but they can’t come up with new laws themselves. They have power but the only way they can really exercise it is by saying people don’t have the right to something that there was previously a precedent that people had the right to. There’s a limit to how far they can push that before they piss people off.
The Supreme Court can change the interpretation of laws but they can’t come up with new laws themselves. They have power but the only way they can really exercise it is by saying people don’t have the right to something that there was previously a precedent that people had the right to. There’s a limit to how far they can push that before they piss people off.
Mr. Big Black Friday triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,316
Like yeah, abortion, voting rights. Wait until they get to freedom of speech.
Anonymous E replied with this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,319
@1,438,315 (Mr. Big Black Friday)
> The Supreme Court can change the interpretation of laws but they can’t come up with new laws themselves.
In Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court just "interpreted" that they had judicial review out of nowhere
They can interpret any law however they want, they make up new intepretations that flip back and forth.
@previous (Mr. Big Black Friday)
> Wait until they get to freedom of speech.
It's the left that complains about freedom of speech.
> The Supreme Court can change the interpretation of laws but they can’t come up with new laws themselves.
In Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court just "interpreted" that they had judicial review out of nowhere
They can interpret any law however they want, they make up new intepretations that flip back and forth.
@previous (Mr. Big Black Friday)
> Wait until they get to freedom of speech.
It's the left that complains about freedom of speech.
Mr. Big Black Friday replied with this 3 weeks ago, 50 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,320
I’ll also point out that the judicial branch only has power in theory but not in practice. The judicial branch has no means of enforcing its rulings and rulings made by the judicial branch are enforced by the executive branch. So in theory, the executive branch could just stop listening to the Supreme Court and there’s nothing they could really do about it besides issue a punishment in writing to the executive branch demanding that the executive branch punish themselves. Which they could also just ignore.
Mr. Big Black Friday double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,322
Anonymous E replied with this 3 weeks ago, 49 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,323
@1,438,320 (Mr. Big Black Friday)
"Trump has enforced his race war, now let him make a ruling 😏" —Kentanji
"Trump has enforced his race war, now let him make a ruling 😏" —Kentanji
Mr. Big Black Friday replied with this 3 weeks ago, 50 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,324
Anonymous E replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,325
@1,438,322 (Mr. Big Black Friday)
Advocating for banning speakers at public universities saying "hate speech isn't free speech", shouting over public debators and speakers.
Advocating for banning speakers at public universities saying "hate speech isn't free speech", shouting over public debators and speakers.
Mr. Big Black Friday replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,326
@previous (E)
That’s not a violation of freedom of speech. A university isn’t obligated to invite anyone to speak. Shouting over somebody else also isn’t a violation of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is protection from the government, not from fellow citizens. As a citizen of the United States of America I have no duty to protect your right to freedom of expression.
That’s not a violation of freedom of speech. A university isn’t obligated to invite anyone to speak. Shouting over somebody else also isn’t a violation of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is protection from the government, not from fellow citizens. As a citizen of the United States of America I have no duty to protect your right to freedom of expression.
Mr. Big Black Friday double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,327
And this is important by the way. You should know that freedom of speech is only a protection against the government, it isn’t protection against a university unless that university says it’s their policy that they will uphold free speech (even then it can still conflict with anti harassment laws), and it isn’t protection from your employer. If you sign a contract that requires you to not say certain things in public or else you’ll lose your job, there’s not much you can do about that. You also can’t sue a social media company for deleting your posts because tech companies aren’t part of the government, so they aren’t obligated to protect your freedom of expression. Under the law, websites and apps have the ability to moderate their own content as they see fit.
Anonymous E replied with this 3 weeks ago, 11 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,329
@1,438,326 (Mr. Big Black Friday)
> A university isn’t obligated to invite anyone to speak.
A *public* university needs to allow voices from the public to have a fair opportunity, not just priveliging half the political spectrum.
Private universities can do whatever they like.
> Shouting over somebody else also isn’t a violation of freedom of speech.
Of course it is, you aren't free to speak if your voice is drowned out.
> Freedom of speech is protection from the government, not from fellow citizens.
Wrong, you're thinking of the 1st amendment.
The 1st amendment is a law that protects freedom of speech in certain situations.
> As a citizen of the United States of America I have no duty to protect your right to freedom of expression.
I never said you have a duty to protect it.
I said the left is the side that is always opposed to freedom of speech. It's the left that wants to censor ideas they disagree with.
> A university isn’t obligated to invite anyone to speak.
A *public* university needs to allow voices from the public to have a fair opportunity, not just priveliging half the political spectrum.
Private universities can do whatever they like.
> Shouting over somebody else also isn’t a violation of freedom of speech.
Of course it is, you aren't free to speak if your voice is drowned out.
> Freedom of speech is protection from the government, not from fellow citizens.
Wrong, you're thinking of the 1st amendment.
The 1st amendment is a law that protects freedom of speech in certain situations.
> As a citizen of the United States of America I have no duty to protect your right to freedom of expression.
I never said you have a duty to protect it.
I said the left is the side that is always opposed to freedom of speech. It's the left that wants to censor ideas they disagree with.
Mr. Big Black Friday replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,330
@previous (E)
Well if you’re not talking about the first amendment then really you’re just talking about your own personal opinions on what should be protected speech and what shouldn’t be protected speech rather than what the law says. I’m just going by the constitution, which is separate from my own opinions the same way your own opinions are separate from the constitution and that’s fine. We both disagree with the constitution but in different ways.
Well if you’re not talking about the first amendment then really you’re just talking about your own personal opinions on what should be protected speech and what shouldn’t be protected speech rather than what the law says. I’m just going by the constitution, which is separate from my own opinions the same way your own opinions are separate from the constitution and that’s fine. We both disagree with the constitution but in different ways.
Mr. Big Black Friday double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,331
I mean you could tell me what you think and I could tell you what I think and you wouldn’t like what I think and I wouldn’t like what you think, but there’s no point in it since neither you nor I control the government so neither your opinion nor my opinion is relevant in any way whatsoever.
Meta replied with this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,332
@1,438,301 (E)> they hid the autopsy report from the last election. They finally released it, and it looked like a schizophrenic childmade it with chatgpt.
It's even worse than that! ChatGPT would have at least put in a Conclusion section with bullet points and stuff.
Anonymous E replied with this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,333
@1,438,330 (Mr. Big Black Friday)
> then really you’re just talking about your own personal opinions on what should be protected speech and what shouldn’t be protected speech rather than what the law says.
No, I said that the left is against free speech.
I didn't define what should or shouldn't be protected, I indicated which side is trying to censor speech.
Whatever you feel about it, and whatever I think should or shouldn't be protected, it's the left that is against free speech and in favor of moderating speech.
> I’m just going by the constitution, which is separate from my own opinions the same way your own opinions are separate from the constitution and that’s fine. We both disagree with the constitution but in different ways.
That wasn't what we were talking about, and I didn't say that.
You can see this post to see how this got started:
@1,438,319 (E)
And then your question to me:
@1,438,322 (Mr. Big Black Friday)
> then really you’re just talking about your own personal opinions on what should be protected speech and what shouldn’t be protected speech rather than what the law says.
No, I said that the left is against free speech.
I didn't define what should or shouldn't be protected, I indicated which side is trying to censor speech.
Whatever you feel about it, and whatever I think should or shouldn't be protected, it's the left that is against free speech and in favor of moderating speech.
> I’m just going by the constitution, which is separate from my own opinions the same way your own opinions are separate from the constitution and that’s fine. We both disagree with the constitution but in different ways.
That wasn't what we were talking about, and I didn't say that.
You can see this post to see how this got started:
@1,438,319 (E)
And then your question to me:
@1,438,322 (Mr. Big Black Friday)
Mr. Big Black Friday replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,334
@previous (E)
"The left" doesn’t exist. There are just people who identify as left wing. It’s meaningless to say the left or the right thinks anything. The left and the right are abstract concepts that are vaguely defined.
"The left" doesn’t exist. There are just people who identify as left wing. It’s meaningless to say the left or the right thinks anything. The left and the right are abstract concepts that are vaguely defined.
Meta replied with this 3 weeks ago, 25 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,335
@1,438,299 (G)
> maybe
> But let’s hope that they’ve learned their lesson from the failings of the Obama era and the trump 1 era and not rely on idpol and whatever else bullshit they were running on during those times. Theyre the reason we got what we got now.
Ironically Dems are afflicted with the same sickness the GOP was in 2015, when they kept trying to run on the George W Bush formula long after it had become exhausted. Trump did a hostile takeover of the party, broke a bunch of taboos, and gored a few sacred cows. This broke the Republicans out of their 10 year funk. The Democrats need a "Trump" of their own to move them out of the Obama/Clinton/Biden/Harris era, which is now just as tired.
> maybe
> But let’s hope that they’ve learned their lesson from the failings of the Obama era and the trump 1 era and not rely on idpol and whatever else bullshit they were running on during those times. Theyre the reason we got what we got now.
Ironically Dems are afflicted with the same sickness the GOP was in 2015, when they kept trying to run on the George W Bush formula long after it had become exhausted. Trump did a hostile takeover of the party, broke a bunch of taboos, and gored a few sacred cows. This broke the Republicans out of their 10 year funk. The Democrats need a "Trump" of their own to move them out of the Obama/Clinton/Biden/Harris era, which is now just as tired.
Mr. Big Black Friday replied with this 3 weeks ago, 39 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,336
Mr. Big Black Friday double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 37 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,337
What percentage of Americans do you think would vote for having no president if that was an option on the ballot?
Anonymous E replied with this 3 weeks ago, 41 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,338
@1,438,334 (Mr. Big Black Friday)
Bullshit, the terms exist for a reason.
It's the people who vote democrat that gather in mobs to shout down speakers who they disagree with.
Bullshit, the terms exist for a reason.
It's the people who vote democrat that gather in mobs to shout down speakers who they disagree with.
Meta replied with this 3 weeks ago, 23 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,339
@1,438,337 (Mr. Big Black Friday)
I think quite a high percentage of Americans would vote for returning you to Africa.
I think quite a high percentage of Americans would vote for returning you to Africa.
Mr. Big Black Friday replied with this 3 weeks ago, 35 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,340
Do we actually need a president? All the government agencies have leaders. What if you just let NASA and the military and the FBI and the CIA just wing it on their own?
Mr. Big Black Friday double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 25 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,341
Anonymous E replied with this 3 weeks ago, 35 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,343
Mr. Big Black Friday replied with this 3 weeks ago, 4 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,344
@1,438,338 (E)
> It's the people who vote democrat that gather in mobs to shout down speakers who they disagree with.
Name one country where nobody’s ever done that.
> It's the people who vote democrat that gather in mobs to shout down speakers who they disagree with.
Name one country where nobody’s ever done that.
Anonymous E replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,346
@previous (Mr. Big Black Friday)
Beside the point, glad we could establish which party is against free speech.
Beside the point, glad we could establish which party is against free speech.
Mr. Big Black Friday replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,347
But for real though the shouting thing is the most mild complaint. That’s like saying too many people jaywalk.
Mr. Big Black Friday double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 41 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,348
Anonymous E replied with this 3 weeks ago, 38 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,349
Mr. Big Black Friday replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,350
Mr. Big Black Friday double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,351
I’m sorry this is a really milquetoast argument.
Mr. Big Black Friday triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,352
Ngl I wish racists would think more. If you’re gonna reply to me with something racist, maybe don’t do it when I say something based like "government bad." Otherwise it makes you look like you support the opposite of what I just said. That happens a lot. It’s dumb.
Anonymous E replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,353
@1,438,350 (Mr. Big Black Friday)
Drowning out speakers is, yes.
So is murdering people who debate on colleges.
And pressuring web platforms to take down content they don't like.
Organized political groups that put effort into stopping a message from their opponents is censorship, and it can take many forms.
This is a necessary tactic when you have a destructive and irrational platoform like: sterilizing/mutilating minors, men in women's sports, high taxation, DEI mandates, black personhood, abolishing police, drug legalization and other insane anarchic beliefs.
No one can prove that a bad thing is good, so they just hope to stop anyone talking sense from being heard
Drowning out speakers is, yes.
So is murdering people who debate on colleges.
And pressuring web platforms to take down content they don't like.
Organized political groups that put effort into stopping a message from their opponents is censorship, and it can take many forms.
This is a necessary tactic when you have a destructive and irrational platoform like: sterilizing/mutilating minors, men in women's sports, high taxation, DEI mandates, black personhood, abolishing police, drug legalization and other insane anarchic beliefs.
No one can prove that a bad thing is good, so they just hope to stop anyone talking sense from being heard
Mr. Big Black Friday replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,355
Mr. Big Black Friday double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 7 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,357
…is there a reason why it’s been 6 minutes and you haven’t said anything?
Mr. Big Black Friday triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 8 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,359
Dude… you are so lame. How are you going to whine about people talking too loud being a violation of your freedom of speech then just casually call black personhood an insane idea, and then not respond for 15 minutes because you know there’s no way to defend what you just said.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 2 weeks ago, 14 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,438,458
@1,438,353 (E)
I know you're daddy's little edgelord, but I just want to remind you that all of Nicholas Sandmann's cases that went to trial were rigged in favor of the news organizations. Also, his first defamation attorney had to retire so he wouldn't be disbarred, and his second defamation attorney lost an election to Thomas Massie.
I know you're daddy's little edgelord, but I just want to remind you that all of Nicholas Sandmann's cases that went to trial were rigged in favor of the news organizations. Also, his first defamation attorney had to retire so he wouldn't be disbarred, and his second defamation attorney lost an election to Thomas Massie.