Jump to content

Ojo Rojo

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1546
  • Joined

Everything posted by Ojo Rojo

  1. Impervious to the the truth and rational criticism.
  2. Okay, this is the post that did it. I have been trying to decide if you were just a person with a differing viewpoint, which would be perfectly fine, or if you are unintelligent and part of the MAGA cult. Turns out, you are an unintelligent person. First, you use the highest end of the range to try to make your point. Strike one as being disingenuous. Second, everyone is against fraud in government spending, except those, I guess, who are committing the fraud or profiting from it in some way. Third, what DOGE is doing is just wantonly slashing things, mostly in the form of jobs (I suppose because everyone in business knows that payroll is your highest expense). And, not coincidentally, they are jobs within departments that as a matter of policy the Trump administration and Republicans/conservatives don't like, like USAID and other programs that help mostly poor people. Policy differences are not the same as fraud. That is totally illogical and, frankly, anti-democratic; strike two. Lastly, the numbers here are a very small fraction of the total budget. Would everyone like fraud in government spending to be as low as possible? Of course! Is it possible for it to ever be zero? Fuck no! Whenever you have an organization as large and as complex as the federal government, even a vastly shrunken version of it, fraud will always be possible and it will always happen. Total failure to understand the way the real world works - strike three. You're out.
  3. I may need to stop reading this thread for my mental health.
  4. Senior prom. I got drunker than I've probably been my entire life, which is saying something. A big part of the reason is that I hadn't eaten dinner because the restaurant took too long and we had to be back at the school because my date and I were on the prom court. We went back to pick up our food but mine got dropped on the floor, so I had nothing to eat. Anyway, we're talking should-have-died-from-alcohol-poisoning-but-for-the-generations-of-my-ancestors-who-drank-their-asses-off-and-gave-me-sufficient-enzymes-to-process-the-alcohol type of drunk. Next morning I'm still totally fucking wasted. We had rented a house and everyone was still there in the morning. I come out of the bedroom with just my boxers on and a giant hard-on. This dude yells out, "Oh my God! He's got a hard-on!" Everyone saw it.
  5. This is the most horrifying death I could think of, personally. If I can't walk upright through a cave, I'm not going in it, period.
  6. I knew this dumb bitch who named her son "Krystjon." When I saw that I said to myself, "All you have really done here is demonstrated that you know the sounds of letters." I'm sure she thought it was clever.
  7. I know, my dudes. It was rhetorical, which is sad.
  8. I mean, honestly - I welcome some World War Z type shit right now. My current routine isn't really doing it for me that much anyway. I'm down for some survivalist shit, personally.
  9. What could go wrong?
  10. Said no one ever. Said everyone all the time.
  11. How do I give infinity rep?
  12. Don't disagree if it's limited to a "sanity check" for an absurd result. Sure. But here, too, is a line-drawing exercise. There are decisions that would be certain to lead to an absurd result and then there are decisions where there is a theoretically possibly absurd outcome. At what odds do you draw the line where you can't make the decision because of the result? Your line is way before mine. I admit that I haven't studied the opinion at length and so my understanding of the full effect may be imperfect, but applying your absurd result test here... Really? Why would they want that? They are not dumb enough to do create a monarchy by accident. They are not untethered from the Constitution enough to do it intentionally. On this, no fucking way.
  13. I disagree, but now we're getting into judicial philosophies. I don't think it's a good idea for a court to consider the effect of their rulings as a guiding principle for how to rule. That makes them legislators and that function is reserved for the Congress. You can be aware of the impact and you can even spell out what the impact of the decision will be within the decision itself as a guidepost or as a plea for Congress to act. I don't think the court banned all evidence behind a presidential act; they banned evidence of motive. Again, the way it's supposed to work is if people don't like that shit, Congress has to act. I know, I know, fat chance. But that's the system we got. I also don't think SCOTUS wants a king or intended to crown one. Do you?
  14. We're going a long way to make a small point. If you read the opinion, it goes into why the plaintiff had standing. The standing issue was addressed at the 10th Circuit and the Supreme Court. They both found "a credible threat" that the plaintiff would be affected by the Colorado law. The plaintiff did not rely on this "phantom" customer to create the case or controversy and the courts did not rely on it either. Everyone here has said that the Supreme Court absolutely issues rulings based on hypotheticals. They cited to this case as an example. The hypothetical everyone was referring to was a made up customer that the business refused to serve. But that hypothetical customer situation is not what the case relied on for standing or for the ultimate ruling. It relied on "a credible threat" that the business would be affected by the Colorado law. There's a difference between a credible threat and a made up factual scenario. I have no problem with the credible threat standard because there is actually a lot of analysis that goes into whether something is a credible threat under the law. It's not arbitrary. So here's where you say, "AHA! But there is a credible threat of Trump using Seal Team 6 to murder a political rival or creditor!" And you would be wrong, but it's not because it is inconceivable; it's because such a thing has not yet been subjected to the credible threat standard described in the 303 Creative case. In other words, you can't assume (as a matter of logic as a normal citizen or as a sitting Supreme Court justice) that just because Trump is capable of such things because he's an unscrupulous immoral unmoored piece of shit and just because he could do it because Congress and the rest of the government utterly failed to stop him, that there is a credible threat that he actually would.
  15. Except that the ruling in the 303 Creative wasn't based on the hypothetical.
  16. Some of y'all's sarcasm meters are broken.
  17. I don't disagree that there is a real danger, but let's just do as Roberts suggested and wait until the President actually orders a political rival (or creditor) to be killed and take it up then.
  18. That it isn't should be your clue.
  19. Lord. Am I really defending the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Donald Trump here? Fuck me. You have to read the whole sentence together. "Extreme hypothetical" = murdering political opponents. "Violating federal criminal law" = of which murdering political opponents would be an example. Roberts wasn't saying the hypotheticals were merely violations of federal criminal law (which he was actively engaged in at the time), but extreme (like murder) and hypothetical (things that haven't actually happened).
  20. A court, especially the Supreme Court, doesn't rule on hypotheticals. There has to be an actual case or controversy. So, I guess if you are a pessimist or whatever, then you could assume the court would determine murdering political opponents is an official act and that the President is immune for prosecution of it, but we don't really know that.
×
×
  • Create New...