DeSantis openly condemns the World Economic Forum and their globalist policies.
(mobile.twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (92)
sorted by:
Isn't it strange how people like Richard Baris and Robert Barnes all cry "muh establishment" whenever someone even mentions DeSantis and yet DeSantis is condemning the WEF?
Trump has been silent on the WEF and their evil policies.
Hell, Trump is still out there pimping Operation Warpspeed and saying lockdowns were necessary in 2020, these Trump 2024 guys have nothing to say about that.
Sad what has happened to these once smart people.
Baris and Barnes used to have really insightful information in terms of political commentary, legal discussion as well as polling data.
Nowadays they both have gone full cultist like that arrogant retard Jack Posobiec and they just jerk off about Trump the whole time.
I like DeSantis, but condemning the WEF, while nice, doesn't absolve someone from being establishment or establishment lite. If anything the blatant efforts by the establishment at the moment to crown him in an effort to knock off orange man do much more to show just who it is that is preferable to the establishment.
They pretty frequently rip on him for it. Just a day or two ago there was yet another tweet circling around that both of those guys retweeted that ripped him for it.
I get that your whole shtick is that you love DeSantis and hate orange man, but trying to shit on Barnes and Baris calling them cultists just because they are noting the very blatant attempts to promote DeSantis to sow discord is unproductive at best and actively aiding in those efforts at worst.
Barnes is knowledgeable and all the more deeply untrustworthy for it. My take is that he is a crusader for the status quo since that is the best way to maintain a stable society in which he, Barnes, will continue to get selected as the first choice lawyer for 'dissidents'. Anyone else saying anything more dangerous than him or likely to challenge for his spot as the newsgrabbing free speech, pro-constitution lawyer will get the full force of his mockery and ire - such as Giuliani when he was rightfully shitting on Dominion. Everything Barnes said at the time was promoting safe, neutered challenges through compromised courts, while he laughingly dunked on accurate allegations such as those of massive widespread, corporate-abetted fraud. And then the judges threw everything out.
-Barnes.
Now that the 2020 election's long in the past and the midterms are fading too, he's happy to cry fraud, fraud, fraud. Because it's safe, it won't make anyone angry enough to actually change anything, yet it makes him look subversive. Same with airing out hoary old stories of 3-letter agencies on his 'hush hush'. Yeah that's great, but what have you leaked for me lately?
Interesting observations about Barnes.
I have recently had similar doubts about him as well.
Something about him rubs me the wrong way.
Looks like he constantly employs the tactic of a limited hangout where he will talk about something true but will make sure to not touch on anything truly subversive.
I see Jack Posobeic and TheLastRefuge guy from the conservative treehouse also do this exact sort of thing.
I don't trust any of these political commentators these days.
They all have their little scheming agendas.
Limited hangout, bingo. There are a lot of these around lately and they're poisonous. Keep your eyes out for Jeffrey Sachs doing the rounds on the podcast circuit these days: a chummy friendly old professor type who calls out the lying press and just tells it like it is, goshdarnit! (but also happens to be the chair of the covid 19 commission report, a WHO cheerleader and crusader for structural adjustment, absolute WEF viper)
One of the big red flags for Barnes for me was when the whole Jack Murphy controversy broke at the beginning of the year, Barnes threatened to sue people for libel for anyone who was dunking on Jack. And he said this was because he had represented Jack in the past. This had two implications. First, his opinions are for sale. This should be obvious given that he's a TV lawyer. Second, his legal arguments are for sale and do not depend on the actual law. The truth, such as Jack places dildos in his ass and talks about cucking and fucking dudes, is an absolute defense to libel claims and Barnes knows this. But you can pay Barnes to argue anything about the law. This should also be obvious given that he's a TV lawyer. But the bottom line is that you can never take what he says at face value.
I've mostly stopped watching Barnes because his partner Viva surreptitiously left Canada without being honest with his audience first (while also leaving all the pro-convoy folks behind to fight battles themselves).
I don't necessarily think it's odd for lawyers to hold heterodox and defensive views regarding former clients like Jack Murphy.
There's likely a complex interplay between not wanting to accidentally break client-attorney privilege, not wanting to deep six the prospect of future legal work from said client along with not wanting to send a signal to the industry as well as prospective future clients that you are willing to throw past clients under the bus.
It’s because stupid people are picking sides in a fight that was never happening trump v desantis is Astro turfed bs
Amazing people don't realize this.
Anyone who still trust Barnes after it came out what he did in the Rittenhouse case is not paying attention.
I already don't trust Barnes, but I'm not aware what he did (other than shit on the defence team for the entire trial because he wasn't on it). What did he do?
The TLDR version is that he demanded to be the face of the case and withdrew his resources when he thought they were disrespecting him. He also refused to listen to the other Defense attorneys when they said that they knew what they were doing and had argued in front of that judge and local juries. He also insisted on his whole jury selection theory that is actually a fairly controversial idea that is highly debated if it even works (hence why they didn’t trust it). And we have since learned the jury was on Kyles side the second they walked in to deliberation and just wanted to look at all evidence again before making their ruling (rather than his theory of political jurors).
So he is not as smart as he seems, at least outside of Constitutional law.
You got me expecting a lot so when you come in with that it just seems like you're grasping at straws. A lot of that just seems like their word versus his. The defense was pretty terrible in that case and Barnes was far from the only person pointing it out. Essentially every single lawyer I watched said similar things.
Where did we supposedly learn this? Realistically the only way we would learn this was one of the jurors speaking up about it, and I have a hard time believing any of them would ever try to spin it as "yeah some of us were being political hacks and were slowly forced to acknowledge he was innocent."
Regardless, going from memory when I've heard him talking about jury selection, it's always about analyzing demographics and specific types of people that make up the local communities to get a better inkling which way they may lean in the case. I'm not a lawyer, so would you be able to explain what aspect of his jury selection philosophy is controversial?
He's not as smart as he seems, but Kyle's lead attorney was arguably shit, and when he came out on day 2 or something and said they were trying to throw the case; I'd already come to that conclusion. They were bumbling and incompetent. We'd already seen where solid facts and evidence with a competent attorney can land you in a partisan trial after the George Floyd trial: life sentences for you and everyone who was around you in contradiction to all available evidence.
Yeah, all I remember was that Barnes was removed from the Rittenhouse defense team immediately before jury selection.
He was joking on stream that he now had a beautiful lakefront cabin in Milwaukee in October/November that he was looking to sublet.
What did he do in the Rittenhouse case? I've followed him pretty closely for years and can't think of what you're getting at.
See my response to the other post. TLDR is large ego and Dick measuring with the other Defense lawyers, while refusing to believe they knew what they were doing.
Trump has gone to the fucking WEF and called them out bud.
That's what I said. I would have called Klaus a fucking Nazi along with all his other Green Party members because they were either former members or children of former members of the National Socialist German Workers Party.
If I'm going against Red Skull with Orange Man or Florida Man, I'll take either, but don't discount Orange Man.