Clown Car V: 2020 version!

[El_Machinae]

Wouldn't a variety able to produce this specific gaffe, be not co-morbid with some deterioration?

I didn't disagree that it's a sign of his age! It easily could be. I also think he's too old to be in the position he's in. I'm just pushing back against the idea that such a gaffe couldn't be from a speech impediment, but must be a sign of aging.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Mike Pence just was bought by China/has always been a part of the Deep State/has always tried to undermine Trump/turned traitor.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/31/politics/pence-gohmert-electoral-college-lawsuit/index.html

Vice President Mike Pence's lawyers asked a federal judge Thursday to reject a request from Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas that attempts to force Pence to ignore electoral votes of several key states when Congress meets to certify the 2020 presidential election next week.

Pence argues that the legal issues raised by Gohmert, along with a slate of Arizona Republicans, should be addressed to the House and Senate (if they should be raised at all).
Gohmert's lawsuit is a last-gasp attempt by Republicans to persuade Pence to interfere in the declaration of President-elect Joe Biden's victory and flip the election for President Donald Trump. The brief, filed with the Eastern District of Texas, does not say if Pence would entertain that possibility, but there is no public indication he will.

By the way, 344,399

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Things Republicans Are Going to Pretend to Care About Again

 

[Birdjaguar]

Trump Declares Georgia Senate Races ‘Illegal And Invalid’ Days Ahead Of Vote
The president’s Twitter declaration is not exactly the get-out-the-vote message some Republicans were looking for.

President Donald Trump declared the Senate runoff elections in Georgia both “illegal and invalid” in a tweet on Friday, which could dissuade his followers from heading to the polls.

The results of the Jan. 5 vote will determine which party controls the Senate. More than 3 million Georgians have already voted during the state’s early voting period.

Trump issued his baseless conclusion in a Twitter thread Friday night when he attacked the election process in the state, which is controlled by Republicans.


In his slam, Trump wrote that the Georgia “consent decree” is “unconstitutional.” He was referring to a bipartisan agreement forged by election officials in March that helped establish standards for judging valid signatures on absentee ballots. Lawsuits challenging the decree on Trump’s behalf have failed.

“The Georgia Consent Decree is Unconstitutional & the State 2020 Presidential Election ... is therefore both illegal and invalid, and that would include the two current Senatorial Elections,” Trump tweeted.

 

[mitsho]

It just shows, Trump is not a Republican. He was just using them.

On another note, Mitch McConnell's house was vandalized and I liked the response under that tweet the most that said "I don't want to cheer for things like that - but then again it's Mitch McConnell." And I think that hits the nail on the head.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Senators in final bid to derail certification of Biden's victory

A group of US senators say they will refuse to certify Joe Biden's election victory unless a commission is set up to investigate alleged voter fraud.

The 11 senators and senators-elect, led by Ted Cruz, want a 10-day delay to audit the unsubstantiated allegations.

The move is not expected to succeed as most senators are expected to endorse Mr Biden in the 6 January vote.

President Donald Trump has refused to concede, repeatedly alleging fraud without providing any evidence.

His legal efforts to overturn results have been rejected by the courts.

The US Electoral College - which confirmed November's presidential election result by awarding points for each state won by the two White House rivals - last month cemented Mr Biden's victory over Mr Trump by 306-232.

• Inauguration 2021: What to expect as Biden sworn in

These votes must be affirmed by Congress on 6 January. Inauguration Day, when the new Democratic president and vice-president are sworn in, will be on 20 January.

What do Trump allies want?
In a statement, the 11 senators led by Texas senator Ted Cruz said November's election had "featured unprecedented allegations of voter fraud, violations and lax enforcement of election law, and other voting irregularities".

Citing a precedent from 1877 - when a bi-partisan committee was formed to investigate after both parties claimed victory in three states - they urged Congress to appoint a commission for an "emergency 10-day audit of election returns in the disputed states".

"Once completed, individual states would evaluate the commission's findings and could convene a special legislative session to certify a change in their vote, if needed," they said.

However they said their bid was unlikely to succeed. "We are not naïve. We fully expect most if not all Democrats, and perhaps more than a few Republicans, to vote otherwise," they said.

Their move is separate from that of Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, who has also said he will reject the Electoral College result over election integrity concerns.

A group of Republicans in the lower chamber of Congress, the House of Representatives, is also planning to contest the election results.

With at least a dozen Republican senators now planning to challenge the election results in Congress, it is clear - if it wasn't already - that the party's heart continues to be with Donald Trump's efforts to overturn his presidential loss.

The effort will be futile, given the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, but the goal for many of these politicians is not to pull off a miraculous reversal of fortune for the president. Instead, it is to curry favour with Trump's loyal base.

They are wagering that the road to success in the Republican Party will continue to run through Trump and his faithful, whos support could be invaluable to senators with presidential ambitions, like Ted Cruz of Texas or Josh Hawley of Missouri, or ones concerned about future primary opposition from pro-Trump politicians.

This is not the first time members of Congress dismayed by the outcome of a presidential election have objected during the largely ceremonial counting of Electoral College votes. It will, however, be the largest such revolt in nearly a century and a half.

It is a sign that the partisan rancour in the US, exacerbated by Trump's scorched-earth fight to hold on to the presidency, will not fade away anytime soon.

What will happen on 6 January?
Electoral count objections that are endorsed by a member of the House of Representatives and a member of the Senate must be considered by lawmakers in a two-hour debate, followed by a vote.

But for electoral votes to be rejected, a majority in both chambers must uphold the objection. This scenario is seen as all but impossible since Democrats hold a majority in the House and some Republicans in the Senate have already said they will not contest the results.

• Bid to get Pence to overturn poll results fails

• Biden victory formalised after electors cast votes

Top Republicans have said the Senate's role in certifying the election is largely ceremonial and should not be an opportunity for further lengthy debate about the result.

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has already recognised Mr Biden's victory and has asked other Republicans not to object.

The decision by some Republicans to defy their leadership indicates a growing split within the party, the BBC's Washington correspondent Lebo Diseko says.

The Biden camp has not responded to the latest move to object to the election result. But Biden spokeswoman Jen Psaki has described Mr Hawley's attempt as "antics".

"The American people spoke resoundingly in this election and 81 million people have voted for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris," she said.

"Congress will certify the results of the election as they do every four years."

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-55517626

 

[Broken_Erika]

It just shows, Trump is not a Republican. He was just using them.

On another note, Mitch McConnell's house was vandalized and I liked the response under that tweet the most that said "I don't want to cheer for things like that - but then again it's Mitch McConnell." And I think that hits the nail on the head.

also

Fake blood and a severed pig's head were reportedly left outside Democrat Ms Pelosi's California house, which was also graffitied.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55518151

 

[Estebonrober]

Everything about this picture screams "This is America".

 

[Birdjaguar]

His front door has a kickplate!

 

[Estebonrober]

His front door has a kickplate!

I think its telling the front door is never cleaned, also this has to be like a "I'm here in Louisville" residence. I want to see his main residence.

 

[Sommerswerd]

No way he stays there any significant percentage of the time. The bow on the wreath is crooked and the wreath itself isn't fancy enough for a sitting Senator.

Everything about this picture screams "This is America".

So many layers... the first of which being, that "Where's" is misspelled.

His front door has a kickplate!

He gets a lot of packages and they are brought into the house by people who don't actually live there (ie servants).

 

[Estebonrober]

No way he stays there any significant percentage of the time. The bow on the wreath is crooked and the wreath itself isn't fancy enough for a sitting Senator.
So many layers... the first of which being, that "Where's" is misspelled.He gets a lot of packages and they are brought into the house by people who don't actually live there (ie servants).

The ADT security sticker, the shim for the door setting underneath the side window, the worn doorbell that has not worked for a generation. . . I wish there was like a 2004 ford taurus out front or something too

 

[Birdjaguar]

Trump is getting even more desperate and more public in his desperateness. @Berzerker @onejayhawk What do you think of your guy and his attempts to over throw the election?

‘I just want to find 11,780 votes’: In extraordinary hour-long call, Trump pressures Georgia secretary of state to recalculate the vote in his favor

In a phone call on Saturday, President Trump insisted he won the state and threatened vague legal consequences. Here are excerpts from the call. (Obtained by The Washington Post)
By
Amy Gardner
Jan. 3, 2021 at 10:59 a.m. MST

President Trump urged fellow Republican Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, to “find” enough votes to overturn his defeat in an extraordinary one-hour phone call Saturday that election experts said raised legal questions.

The Washington Post obtained a recording of the conversation in which Trump alternately berated Raffensperger, tried to flatter him, begged him to act and threatened him with vague criminal consequences if the secretary of state refused to pursue his false claims, at one point warning that Raffensperger was taking “a big risk.”

Throughout the call, Raffensperger and his office’s general counsel rejected Trump’s assertions, explaining that the president is relying on debunked conspiracy theories and that President-elect Joe Biden’s 11,779-vote victory in Georgia was fair and accurate.

Trump dismissed their arguments. “The people of Georgia are angry, the people in the country are angry,” he said. “And there’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated.”

Raffensperger responded: “Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is, the data you have is wrong.” At another point, Trump said: “So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state.” The rambling and at times incoherent conversation offered a remarkable glimpse of how consumed and desperate the president remains about his loss, unwilling or unable to let the matter go and still believing he can reverse the results in enough battleground states to remain in office.

“There’s no way I lost Georgia,” Trump said, a phrase he repeated again and again on the call. “There’s no way. We won by hundreds of thousands of votes.”

Several of his allies were on the line as he spoke, including White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and conservative lawyer Cleta Mitchell, a prominent GOP lawyer whose involvement with Trump’s efforts had not been previously known.

In a statement, Mitchell said Raffensperger’s office “has made many statements over the past two months that are simply not correct and everyone involved with the efforts on behalf of the President’s election challenge has said the same thing: show us your records on which you rely to make these statements that our numbers are wrong.”

The White House, the Trump campaign and Meadows did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Raffensperger’s office declined to comment. On Sunday, Trump tweeted that he had spoken to Raffensperger, saying the secretary of state was “unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the “ballots under table” scam, ballot destruction, out of state “voters”, dead voters, and more. He has no clue!”

Raffensperger responded with his own tweet: “Respectfully, President Trump: What you’re saying is not true.”

The pressure Trump put on Raffensperger is the latest example of his attempt to subvert the outcome of the Nov. 3 election through personal outreach to state Republican officials. He previously invited Michigan Republican state leaders to the White House, pressured Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) in a call to try to replace that state’s electors and asked the speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives to help reverse his loss in that state.

His call to Raffensperger came as scores of Republicans have

pledged to challenge the Electoral College’s vote for Biden when Congress convenes for a joint session on Wednesday. Republicans do not have the votes to successfully thwart Biden’s victory, but Trump has urged supporters to travel to Washington to protest the outcome, and state and federal officials are already bracing for clashes outside the Capitol.

During their conversation, Trump issued a vague threat to both Raffensperger and Ryan Germany, the secretary of state’s legal counsel, suggesting that if they don’t find that thousands of ballots in Fulton County have been illegally destroyed to block investigators — an allegation for which there is no evidence — they would be subject to criminal liability.

“That’s a criminal offense,” he said. “And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer.” Trump also told Raffensperger that failure to act by Tuesday would jeopardize the political fortunes of David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler, Georgia’s two Republican senators whose fate in that day’s runoff elections will determine control of the U.S. Senate.

Trump said he plans to talk about the fraud on Monday, when he is scheduled to lead an election eve rally in Dalton, Ga. — a message that could further muddle the efforts of Republicans to get their voters out.

“You have a big election coming up and because of what you’ve done to the president — you know, the people of Georgia know that this was a scam,” Trump said. “Because of what you’ve done to the president, a lot of people aren’t going out to vote, and a lot of Republicans are going to vote negative, because they hate what you did to the president. Okay? They hate it. And they’re going to vote. And you would be respected, really respected, if this can be straightened out before the election.”

Trump’s conversation with Raffensperger put him in legally questionable territory, legal experts said. By exhorting the secretary of state to “find” votes and to deploy investigators who “want to find answers,” Trump appears to be encouraging him to doctor the election outcome in Georgia.

But experts said Trump’s clearer transgression is a moral one. Edward B. Foley, a law professor at the Ohio State University, said that the legal questions are murky and would be subject to prosecutorial discretion. But he also emphasized that the call was “inappropriate and contemptible” and should prompt moral outrage.

“He was already tripping the emergency meter,” Foley said. “So we were at 12 on a scale of 1 to 10, and now we’re at 15.”

Throughout the call, Trump detailed an exhaustive list of disinformation and conspiracy theories to support his position. He claimed without evidence that he had won Georgia by at least a half-million votes. He floated a barrage of assertions that have been investigated and disproved: that thousands of dead people voted; that an Atlanta election worker scanned 18,000 forged ballots three times each and “100 percent” were for Biden; that thousands more voters living out of state came back to Georgia illegally just to vote in the election.

“So tell me, Brad, what are we going to do? We won the election, and it’s not fair to take it away from us like this,” Trump said. “And it’s going to be very costly in many ways. And I think you have to say that you’re going to reexamine it, and you can reexamine it, but reexamine it with people that want to find answers, not people who don’t want to find answers.”

Trump did most of the talking on the call. He was angry and impatient, calling Raffensperger a “child” and “either dishonest or incompetent” for not believing there was widespread ballot fraud in Atlanta — and twice calling himself a “schmuck” for endorsing Kemp, whom Trump holds in particular contempt for not embracing his claims of fraud. “I can’t imagine he’s ever getting elected again, I’ll tell you that much right now,” he said.

He also took aim at Kemp’s 2018 opponent, Democrat Stacey Abrams, trying to shame Raffensperger with the idea that his refusal to embrace fraud has helped her and Democrats generally. “Stacey Abrams is laughing about you,” he said. “She’s going around saying, ‘These guys are dumber than a rock.’ What she’s done to this party is unbelievable, I tell you.”

The secretary of state repeatedly sought to push back, saying at one point, “Mr. President, the problem you have with social media, that — people can say anything.” “Oh this isn’t social media,” Trump retorted. “This is Trump media. It’s not social media. It’s really not. It’s not social media. I don’t care about social media. I couldn’t care less.”

At another point, Trump claimed that votes were scanned three times: “Brad, why did they put the votes in three times? You know, they put ’em in three times.” Raffensperger responded: “Mr. President, they did not. We did an audit of that and we proved conclusively that they were not scanned three times.”

Trump sounded at turns confused and meandering. At one point, he referred to Kemp as “George.” He tossed out several different figures for Biden’s margin of victory in Georgia and referred to the Senate runoff, which is Tuesday, as happening “tomorrow” and “Monday.” His desperation was perhaps most pronounced during an exchange with Germany, Raffensperger’s general counsel, in which he openly begged for validation.

Trump: “Do you think it’s possible that they shredded ballots in Fulton County? ’Cause that’s what the rumor is. And also that Dominion took out machines. That Dominion is really moving fast to get rid of their, uh, machinery. Do you know anything about that? Because that’s illegal.”

Germany responded: “No, Dominion has not moved any machinery out of Fulton County.” Trump: “But have they moved the inner parts of the machines and replaced them with other parts?”
Germany: “No.”
Trump: “Are you sure? Ryan?”
Germany: “I’m sure. I’m sure, Mr. President.”

It was clear from the call that Trump has surrounded himself with aides who have fed his false perceptions that the election was stolen. When he claimed that more than 5,000 ballots were cast in Georgia in the name of dead people, Raffensperger responded forcefully: “The actual number was two. Two. Two people that were dead that voted.”

But later, Meadows said, “I can promise you there are more than that.”

Another Trump lawyer on the call, Kurt Hilbert, accused Raffensperger’s office of refusing to turn over data to assess evidence of fraud, and also claimed awareness of at least 24,000 illegally cast ballots that would flip the result to Trump.

“It stands to reason that if the information is not forthcoming, there’s something to hide,” Hilbert said. “That’s the problem that we have.” Reached by phone Sunday, Hilbert declined to comment.

In the end, Trump asked Germany to sit down with one of his attorneys to go over the allegations. Germany agreed. Yet Trump also recognized that he was failing to persuade Raffensperger or Germany of anything, saying toward the end, “I know this phone call is going nowhere.”

But he continued to make his case in repetitive fashion, until finally, after more than an hour, Raffensperger put an end to the conversation: “Thank you, President Trump, for your time.”

 

[Birdjaguar]

And we thought it couldn't get any sillier!

Trade Adviser Peter Navarro Astoundingly Claims Inauguration Day Can Be Postponed
“Oh! OK,” said Jeanine Pirro when Navarro lied to her on Fox News.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/pete...e-inauguration-day_n_5ff14f94c5b6ec8ae0b34f42

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that Trump DC rally also features Alex Jones. Not sure if it is even organized by the Alex

 

[Ferocitus]

I think that Trump DC rally also features Alex Jones. Not sure if it is even organized by the Alex

I hope he is organising it. But it will be hard to beat that brilliant venue between the landscaper and the sex shop.

 

[Estebonrober]

No **** those payments have. Tell us more about making it rain, and maybe a few lessons on suffering for the government strippers?

Surely "home" and "suffering" are group political activities you can keep scorecards of and be righteous about.

see WTH is this supposed to mean anyways?

I'm being a blowhard by pointing out the nation is in a bad place? Or pointing out that farmers have the seecond highest revenue of all time mainly on that dirty "scoialism"?

This could get interesting now. A ladder and an ironing board have been placed inside the ring.

this is not helpful either really

 

[Farm Boy]

You WTH it, but then nail it in the next sentence. Who the hell are you even talking to? Yeah, socialism sure is dirty. According to someone somewhere else in some other conversation you want to be having, that must be spell it that way. Yeah, you have both thumbs up there.

 

[Berzerker]

So your position, simply stated, is Democrats who criticize Trump are like the Pharisees. The reasons your position is unsound are numerous, however I will give just two. First, your position depends on an incorrect interpretation of the meaning of what Jesus said/did in the "cast the first stone" story. The main point of the story is to remind us that God/Jesus is the ultimate judge, and we can not pass judgment on those who He has forgiven. Jesus was making the point that of all the people there judging the woman, he alone was in the superior position to do the judging.

That isn't my position, the hypocrites are Pharisees. How do people vote for Biden after spending 4 years complaining about Trump's corruption? They're both corrupt. How could people morally outraged by Slick Willie's sexual malfeasance vote for Trump? You mentioned 'the main point', are there other points?

Jesus didn't mention forgiveness, only that he would not condemn her either and he waited until the Pharisees had gone before speaking to her, so they left with a different lesson. Your main point may matter to Christians but not for the rest of us, Jesus' identity is irrelevant to what he asked the Pharisees.

Second, you seem to assume that Jesus was speaking about passing judgment generally. That is incorrect. Jesus was dealing with that one woman, in that one circumstance, facing that particular set of accusers. It wasn't intended as universally applicable, although his gesture in saving/forgiving the woman did make an interesting philosophical point about being thoughtful about the harshness with which we judge others.

Does that mean adulterers can throw stones at each other all they want because Jesus was talking only to the Pharisees? His question appears universal, those Pharisees weren't the only sinners in the world. Unfortunately the story was about an adulteress and not eg a murderer. Did Jesus draw a line somewhere?

The Romans murdered people by the thousands and yet he told Pilate he had the 'divine' authority to execute him. I suspect he was passing along a more hidden esoteric knowledge, but his words to Rome gave birth to - or perpetuated - the notion of kings ruling with a mandate from God. Ugh! That and his views about slavery are 2 reasons why arguments about his perfectness run aground so easily. Besides, he cant be both perfect and human, right?

The way you seem to want to interpret the story is in a "glass house" kind of way... to essentially preclude anyone from criticizing anyone else if they have any flaws themselves... specifically, because, as has been pointed out many times, you are desperate to defend Republicans, particularly Trump. So you have glitched onto this "glass house" interpretation of the "cast the first stone" so that you can use it as an absolute defense against anyone criticizing Trump.

When have I defended the Republicans? Their fingerprints are all over these various wars the 2 parties have waged in my lifetime. If you're gonna accuse me of defending them, back it up. And I rarely defend Trump, mostly I just admire the glass houses.

Jesus wasn't defending the adulteress when he asked the Pharisees if they were without sin, nor am I defending Trump when I ask Democrats about their sins. At least the Pharisees dropped their stones and walked away, Democrats just ignore Jesus and keep throwing them.

But this interpretation is absurd. People are flawed. No one is without mistake, blemish or wrong. For society to function, flawed people must be able to pass judgment on others for breaking the rules/laws or otherwise behaving poorly. So obviously, to interpret Jesus admonition to the Pharisees as stating that no one is allowed to judge anyone else if they themselves have done anything wrong is a completely nonsensical interpretation.

So sinners can throw stones? I think the point Jesus was making was the Pharisees were at a minimum just as guilty as her. Judging by how Jesus defined adultery that was a low hurdle. The Pharisees had the law on their side, but Jesus was challenging their moral authority. Not because of God's 'will', stoning adulterers was commonplace and deeply ensconced in biblical tradition. Hell, Moses stoned some guy for gathering firewood on the Sabbath. How would you like to have him as a neighbor?

This is a third problem with your position. You keep bringing up the Pharisees because you think it is an absolute defense of Trump in the face of the criticisms of "flawed" Democrats.

Not flawed, hypocritical.

Putting aside the explanations above regarding the flaws in that position, raising the question of whether Jesus was "perfect" or not completely undermines your position. This is because your constant referencing of Jesus admonition to the Pharisees only works based on a presumption of Jesus unassailable credibility/authority as a divine being. It doesn't matter whether you use the word "perfect" or not... the point is that Jesus is correct, because he is Jesus, the Lord God, Son of God, divine Savior of man, etc.

He is correct because the Pharisees were hypocrites and they knew it. This perfection you're talking about is irrelevant to his question, the Pharisees convicted themselves. They didn't believe Jesus was God or perfect, but they did know he was right.

Now that involved a death penalty crime, the broader implications call into question what Jesus thought about how people should be punished if at all. Thats a tough debate, adultery should be legal so he didn't really go out on a limb. But imagine if the Pharisees had brought a murderer before him.

If Jesus is, according to you... just some guy, then your constant referencing of what Jesus said no longer has any authoritative weight, so it is nonsensical for you to keep referencing him as if it does, since you're the one denying his "perfection". If Jesus isn't "perfect", if he isn't "divine", etc... then why are you quoting him as if he's authoritative?

Because he was right and he represents everyone who has seen the not-so-saintly punish the sinners. I dont know the name or the text of all the other people who asked the question, but I'm sure Buddhists for example have a similar sentiment predating Jesus. In western culture Jesus gets the credit, but if he never existed the question doesn't disappear with him. It remains because its in us, the plea of the sinner and a reminder for the powerful.

If Jesus isn't "perfect", then he can easily just be flat out wrong. I know you are trying to be clever and edgy or whatever in questioning Jesus' "perfection", but what I'm pointing out is that this completely undercuts the point you are trying to make. As I've outlined above, the interpretation that you're advocating already makes no sense, so arguing out that Jesus isn't even "perfect" just makes your argument seem even weaker than it already was.

Is he wrong? I wasn't being clever or edgy, just recognizing a debate about his perfection exists. You're the one who thinks he has to be perfect for the question to be valid. I dont.

Look, he's a supporter of the embodiment of excess who tries to pass himself off as some sort of Christian, you can stop there already.

I'm neither a Democrat or a Christian

 

[Sommerswerd]

When have I defended the Republicans?

Your main point may matter to Christians but not for the rest of us, Jesus' identity is irrelevant to what he asked the Pharisees.

I agree that Jesus' is irrelevant to you... and so your constant referencing of Him, vis-a-vis the Pharisees, is just a fatally flawed and bad-faith argument.

I'm neither a Democrat or a Christian

If you're not Christian then why do you keep citing Jesus and the Pharisees as authoritative?

Let me put it another, more explicit way. If Jesus is fantasy... made up... like Zeus, Spiderman and Paddington Bear, then citing what Jesus said and/or did is like citing what Optimus Prime said/did... it doesn't have any inherrent authority. Unless you are Christian and/or are recognizing/stipulating Jesus as a historical divine being with absolute knowledge/correctness, you don't have any standing to demand others recognize him as authoritative.

Do you recognize Jesus as a historical divine being? If not, then why should anyone give a crap about what Jesus said?

As I've already explained... "cast the first stone" is illogical, impractical and unsound, particularly in absolute terms. Its a not a good principle at all, on the merits. This is aptly demonstrated in the partisan, self-serving way that you always try to use it. The only reason that it has any weight in the way you try to apply it, is precisely because Jesus said it, and this is only because Jesus carries inherent authority...for Christians.

But now that you've stated you aren't Christian, your use of this story to attack Democrats has been exposed as complete and utter bad-faith.