|
Shooting Blanks posted:We don't need more political dynasties by any name. I was gonna make a joke about Chelsea here but the last Clinton that had any political aspirations ate poo poo to a reality tv game show host lmfao
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
Lib and let die posted:I was gonna make a joke about Chelsea here but the last Clinton that had any political aspirations ate poo poo to a reality tv game show host lmfao She won the popular vote by 3 million votes. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 19:03
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:She won the popular vote by 3 million votes. Field goals don't win football games. Scoring 10 perfect field goals doesn't turn a 35-30 game on its head just because 10 scoring plays is more than 5 scoring plays (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Lib and let die fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Mar 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 19:07
|
|
|
Tom Brady
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Tom Brady Counterpoint: Donald Tump
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 19:21
|
|
|
Dull Fork posted:Really funny how posters assumed I meant we should publicly plan violence. I said 'won't even talk about the force required to save lives'. Talk. As in, debate & discuss what actions one believes would save lives. What kind of actions, and what kind of force, are you suggesting? Without a clear or specific argument from you to kick things off, I'm not really sure there's anything to respond to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 19:41
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What kind of actions, and what kind of force, are you suggesting? Without a clear or specific argument from you to kick things off, I'm not really sure there's anything to respond to. I despise the way trans genocide is discussed as if there is no acceptable, legal way to fight against it and that is it. Every single achievement towards a more just and equal society is won via more than just what the state decides is legal. But, you engaged so I'll try to answer. Heres a smattering of illegal things that I believe could save lives, in increasing levels of severity: -Doctors treating trans people despite laws against it, and hiding the evidence of doing so, to prevent prosecution. You could expand this to anyone who could give access to gender-affirming care/meds. -Teachers not snitching on trans kids to their parents. (Theres a Va bill attempting to get passed that would require this, and I believe more bills in other states as well) -If that upcoming kidnapping trans children bill passes, people choosing to rescue them and/or prevent them from being kidnapped. This could involve force. Also hiding them and their parents/guardians from law enforcement. -Harass and intimidate lawmakers who are actively supporting this genocide. Protest outside their homes, do not give them a moments peace, make them feel unsafe for literally supporting genocide. Get them out of power, or scare them into not passing genocidal bills. -Firebombing buildings where genocidal groups are based, so as to not give them a space to operate out of. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And then of course there are far more destructive, violent things as well. For example, after the leak, but before Roe v. Wade was struck down, a man almost attempted to assassinate a supreme court justice. That is extremely violent. He would have had to get another one to change the vote, but the point stands. Changing the make up of the supreme court so that it strikes down genocidal bills absolutely can save lives. And specifically, to the last point. I ask, how many people should be under threat of genocide, how many people must die, before such actions should be considered, or condoned? Where is the line? Dull Fork fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Mar 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 20:56
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Field goals don't win football games. Ok but this doesn't actually invalidate what that person was actually saying, that Hillary was popular enough to win the majority vote by 3 million. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 21:12
|
|
|
Dull Fork posted:I despise the way trans genocide is discussed as if there is no acceptable, legal way to fight against it and that is it. Every single achievement towards a more just and equal society is won via more than just what the state decides is legal. We don't talk about climate news as much here but another good, unfortunate example would be the climate scientist who self immolated in DC. I don't think anyone should do that but we should raise awareness that not enough is being done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 21:19
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:I'm fairly sure part of the problem was that the Hillary campaign and the Democrats as an organisation were pretty incapable of even recognising that Hillary could or did have problems with the black vote and the youth vote. It will never not make me laugh that she went on a black radio station and claimed to always have hot sauce in her purse. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 21:21
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:It will never not make me laugh that she went on a black radio station and claimed to always have hot sauce in her purse. That was verified, she does always have hot sauce in her purse and loves hot sauce. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/12/hillary-clinton-jalapeno-and-hot-sauce-fiend.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 21:22
|
|
|
Yawgmoft posted:Ok but this doesn't actually invalidate what that person was actually saying, that Hillary was popular enough to win the majority vote by 3 million. Fritz the Horse posted:we're not relitigating 2016, thanks 2016 is over. We have a piece of poo poo dem in office now, so in the end libs got what they wanted: an ineffective government that rubbers stamps every disgusting ruling the Supreme Court shits out. Youremother posted:The best thing you can do w/r/t giving money is always giving directly. Giving $100 to a single person can do a lot more tangible good than donating $1000 to a large org sometimes. If you don't know anybody in your life who is in immediate need, look for local orgs, then statewide. 1000%
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 21:30
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:We don't talk about climate news as much here but another good, unfortunate example would be the climate scientist who self immolated in DC. Yeah, drat. I had heard very briefly of that, but I didn't think the event got much attention in the greater national awareness, did it? Seems like its easy to recall Thích Quảng Đức's self-immolation, and its impact on culture (Hello RATM fans). But these days acts like that unfortunately seem almost ignored.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 21:30
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:2016 is over. Thank you for agreeing with me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 21:46
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Field goals don't win football games. Fair enough, but also safe to assume that if the Democrats had only won the popular vote twice in the last few decades but held the White House for half that time, Republicans and their media outlets would be screaming 24/7 about the electoral college being unconstitutional and and an affront to America (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 22:47
|
|
|
Dull Fork posted:Yeah, drat. I had heard very briefly of that, but I didn't think the event got much attention in the greater national awareness, did it? Seems like its easy to recall Thích Quảng Đức's self-immolation, and its impact on culture (Hello RATM fans). But these days acts like that unfortunately seem almost ignored.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 22:55
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Field goals don't win football games. Except your analogy would be more apt if the 35 point team lost because they got most of their points in one quarter and the 30 team got more points in the other 3 quarters. Points are supposed to win games and votes are supposed to win elections, but the US doesn't democratically elect the President. Calling out Clinton for eating poo poo in an election she dominated, but lost only because the way the votes were arbitrarily divided, is dumb. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 22:58
|
|
|
It's been brought to my attention that most of the sixered posts for 2016 primary chat were actually about the 2016 general election. Sorry for being imprecise, it's still a dumb derail. Have a lovely Sunday!
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2023 23:11
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Ask yourself why the white male alleged sex pest didn't do poo poo when the supreme court went full mask off about Roe v Wade. Effectively because Biden, the dems, and those that reward them, support the supreme court's decision (or, at the very least, find the supreme court useful). virtualboyCOLOR posted:2016 is over. We have a piece of poo poo dem in office now, so in the end libs got what they wanted: an ineffective government that rubbers stamps every disgusting ruling the Supreme Court shits out. Viewing not overthrowing the institution of the Supreme Court as support for their decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade is simplistic to the point of uselessness. It is possible to both strongly disagree with a Supreme Court decision, and still believe that the institution of the Supreme Court should continue to exist. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Mar 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2023 01:58
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Viewing not overthrowing the institution of the Supreme Court as support for their decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade is simplistic to the point of uselessness. It is possible to both strongly disagree with a Supreme Court decision, and still believe that the institution of the Supreme Court should continue to exist. Its possible but extremely wrong. I don't care how unfair this statement is: Telling those suffering the real and deadly consequences of the supreme court's decisions that they should focus on fundamentals of the institution is incredibly stupid at best, and straight up evil at worst. It's power is SOLELY derived by folks willfully misinterpreting the constitution for the past 200+ years and those suffering from terminal decorum brain. See the poster below for a clear example. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Mar 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2023 02:13
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Its possible but an extremely wrong. I don't care how unfair this statement is: Telling those suffering the real and deadly consequences of the supreme court's decisions that they should focus on fundamentals of the institution is incredibly stupid at best, and straight up evil at worst. Well, and also from the constitution itself, but it's easy to forget that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2023 02:19
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Well, and also from the constitution itself, but it's easy to forget that. In what article is judicial review detailed in the constitution?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2023 02:53
|
|
|
celadon posted:In what article is judicial review detailed in the constitution?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2023 03:43
|
|
|
I was worried that the whole groomer narrative would’ve been a narrative the right would’ve ran for a decade to condition the public into accepting genocide but it’s wild that in a year they just went straight into “kill all trans arghsbdbabfban” and now they’re already trying to go after normal gays. It’s like their hatred is reaching an unstable singularity point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2023 04:13
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:We don't need more political dynasties by any name. Eh we could do with another Roosevelt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2023 04:14
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:The Constitution doesn't detail a lot of things, but Judicial Review is generally an extrapolation of Article VI. Also, not to get all originalist, but Judicial Review wasn't something the US Supreme Court just made up. it was a preexisting idea and one the framers were aware of and it comes up in Federalist Papers. I get that the concept wasn't pulled out of the ether, its just a funny thing to be all 'why dont you check your pocket constitution on that one' for. Also, just because it was an idea at the time and mentioned in the Federalist Papers doesn't mean it would have been something the framers of the constitution universally agreed on, right? Like there were a number of famous disagreements that had to be worked through in the drafting of the document. If anything, it being a known factor in the pre-constitution intellectual milieu, yet missing in the constitution itself, may indicate that the idea actually wasn't supported by the framers as a general principle. In any case there should be more than enough rhetorical space here to attack the court with. Given that the alternative is to wait for decades of unbroken democratic domination of the entire federal government to slowly chip away at the conservative majority or altering the composition of the court via REDACTED, going after judicial review seems pretty reasonable to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2023 04:17
|
|
|
Youth Decay posted:Eh we could do with another Roosevelt. Where are all the John Adams' when you need one??
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2023 04:19
|
|
|
celadon posted:I get that the concept wasn't pulled out of the ether, its just a funny thing to be all 'why dont you check your pocket constitution on that one' for.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2023 04:28
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Where are all the John Adams' when you need one?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Donley_Adams
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2023 04:40
|
|
|
Judicial review not being in the Constitution is a fun thing for trolling strict constructionists on Facebook or whatever, but only to highlight how strict constructionism is bullshit. It's not really a reasonable understanding of a text written by people who intended it to be a functioning government and were well aware that it would require someone to decide whether a given law actually violated it. And even for needling "limited government" dudes, these days you're better off pointing out that the Constitution gives the federal government no authority to restrict immigration.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2023 04:46
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:
i've been saying for a bit that if we really must have a supreme court where Thomas is semi-regularly in the majority, we at least need him to slam down a dissent (...or 5+ vote majority opinion?!) that immigration control is not a federal power in the constitution and therefore the citizenship of immigrants is up to the states with full faith and credit protection
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2023 05:19
|
|
|
Youremother posted:The best thing you can do w/r/t giving money is always giving directly. Giving $100 to a single person can do a lot more tangible good than donating $1000 to a large org sometimes. If you don't know anybody in your life who is in immediate need, look for local orgs, then statewide. Marthad ibn Abdullah posted:The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “The shade of the believer on the Day of Resurrection is his charity.” Abu Darda posted:The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Seek out the vulnerable for me, for you are only given provision and divine support due to your care for the vulnerable.” Ibn Abbas posted:The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, used to order charity only for the people of Islam, until this verse was revealed, “It is not upon you to guide them, for Allah guides whom He wills. Whatever you spend of good is for yourselves, not spending it but to seek the countenance of Allah. Whatever you spend of good, you will be fully repaid and will not be wronged,” (2:272). Then, the Prophet ordered charity for anyone who asked from every religion. Of course, charity is not sufficient and the government must be righted to take care of systematic issues that cause widespread poverty. However, charity does help real people, is morally obligatory, and covers forgiveness for minor sins. If you are friends with LGBT people, you will inevitably know a lot of them in financial distress. Many people feel like it's not "real" charity if it is for people in your social network, but it is! Knowing the people doesn't eliminate the benefits of charity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2023 07:08
|
|
|
Youth Decay posted:Eh we could do with another Roosevelt. But like, just some guy named Roosevelt, not like anyone actually related to The Roosevelts. That'd be sweet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2023 07:09
|
|
|
You would think the odds would be in our favor to have had a "President Smith" in our history. Two Johnsons but no Smiths?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2023 07:56
|
|
|
celadon posted:I get that the concept wasn't pulled out of the ether, its just a funny thing to be all 'why dont you check your pocket constitution on that one' for. If ending judicial review was an option that was seriously on the table, the GOP probably would have pushed for it fifty years ago when a liberal court majority was dishing out tons of decisions the GOP didn't like. Instead, they spent half a century slowly building up the political momentum needed to take the court back. They wouldn't have bothered with that if it were easier to just end judicial review altogether. Besides, ending judicial review means you need unbroken Democratic domination of the entire federal government forever, because if you deprive the judicial branch of its power, then the only things that can rein in the executive branch and the legislative branch are each other...which will just aggravate the deep dysfunction in our government even further. The Court isn't even the real problem right now, it's the severe weakness and incompetence of Congress that's the real root of all these problems. If the legislative branch could get its poo poo together for a bit, the Court would be much less of a problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2023 09:09
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:You would think the odds would be in our favor to have had a "President Smith" in our history. Two Johnsons but no Smiths? Americans always picking some dick over anyone that's going to build something useful and lasting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2023 09:33
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:You would think the odds would be in our favor to have had a "President Smith" in our history. Two Johnsons but no Smiths? According to name census dot com, who must be reliable, right, currently there's "roughly" (whatever that means) 828 Smiths per 100 000 Americans, or a .828% chance of a random person being a Smith. Obviously this is not constant over time, so this is probably an under-estimate, but rolling that die 46 times would be (1 - .828)^46, right? Which is still a smidge over 68 percent, so it's perfectly reasonable that there hasn't been a president Smith. Of course the draw isn't random, since there's several dynasties and so on, but all the same.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2023 09:44
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Of course, charity is not sufficient and the government must be righted to take care of systematic issues that cause widespread poverty. However, charity does help real people, is morally obligatory, and covers forgiveness for minor sins. If you are friends with LGBT people, you will inevitably know a lot of them in financial distress. Many people feel like it's not "real" charity if it is for people in your social network, but it is! Knowing the people doesn't eliminate the benefits of charity. With all due respect to the prophet, pbuh, there's no such thing as sin. Helping people requires no metaphysical motivations and to believe that it does diminishes the human to human connection that is real. Help friends and strangers because it makes you feel good, or like your life has meaning, or to piss off a republican. But drop this idea that religion has anything to do with getting us out of this mess, because it doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2023 13:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
Twitter is bleeding money and was on track for bankruptcy about 8 months after Elon Musk purchased the company. The banks who let Elon pay for his loans by allowing them to sell the debt to a third-party later are still unable to find any buyers and the $44 billion purchase price was so large that Twitter alone is responsible for freezing the entire business investment divisions of several banks for the next year. Additionally, Elon's claims that content creators would get a share of their revenue if they subscribed to Twitter Blue turned out to be false. Some of the loans Elon took out carry interest rates up to 15% and 70% of Twitter's top advertisers have stopped doing business with the company - which is leading to larger and larger risks/staff cuts in an attempt to raise profits. This includes just not paying their other bills. https://twitter.com/thekenyeung/status/1631836372469424130 https://twitter.com/erinkwoo/status/1631809918843092992 https://twitter.com/bungdan/status/1632089940942282752 quote:Twitter Inc. reported a drop in revenue and adjusted earnings for the month of December, after many advertisers ditched the social-media platform following Elon Musk’s takeover, according to people familiar with the matter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2023 15:23
|
|
