Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    40763
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Most of us were concerned about "which side was to blame" because we knew, not that we could dunk on or be dunked on on a message board, but that elected officials, like Donald Trump, Nancy Mace, Clay Higgins and I'm sure scores of others could ratchet up hateful rhetoric in a public forum where, unlike message boards, it really does matter. Right here on this page is video evidence of the President, of the fucking United States of fucking America, saying, in public, that he doesn't care about right wing violence, but only left wing violence. Do you see why some people might be concerned? Also *bated
  2. Gonna have to disagree with your police work here, Lou, although I get the gist of what you're trying to say. Right here on this thread, there is verbatim evidence of at least three elected representatives of one side, Trump, Mace, and Higgins, being morons (to the extent they aren't actual morons). Edit to add, on this board because the evidence is in the other thread.
  3. The phrase leftist is almost exclusively deployed by Trump aficionados to people like me, who voted mostly GOP for 30+ years. When it was more meaningful, it was applied to actual leftists, like Sandinistas.
  4. And I have stated as much. The tangent of this thread was whether Reagan's "cult" really compares to the Trump "cult." It does not, regardless of similarities they shared, or more accurately how Reagan's actions trace to the environment we find ourselves in today. And the genesis of this tangent was my statement that a lot of MAGAts outright reject the GOP prior to Trump. A lot of Trumpists proudly declare that "I'm not a Republican." That was certainly not the case with Reagan.
  5. Did the poster you quoted say or imply as much?
  6. Incorrect. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The second statement may be true, but it will not be a murder charge.
  7. As I believe bozo observed, "trying on costumes." He seemed to take the cosplay pretty seriously though. AP.
  8. An Indian dude, and self-professed Hindu, "talking to" an alleged Christian, about a Nordic pagan afterlife. Makes sense.
  9. It's absurd, but yeah they do on the false belief that it doesn't contain caffeine.
  10. Leave. Take your hateful bitter shit out of here.
  11. More facile legal analysis. Second, Justice Souter suggests today’s decision may have important ramifications for academic freedom, at least as a constitutional value. See post, at 12–13. There is some argument that expression related to academic scholarship or classroom instruction implicates additional constitutional interests that are not fully accounted for by this Court’s customary employee-speech jurisprudence. We need not, and for that reason do not, decide whether the analysis we conduct today would apply in the same manner to a case involving speech related to scholarship or teaching.
  12. Yeah, that makes sense. A lot of "incidentals" to give away LDS membership. And it's probably pretty hard to be a nominal Mormon in that part of Utah.
  13. When you say "no religion," I'm assuming you mean nothing overtly "advertised." Or do you mean expressly disclaimed? That is unusual I think in that part of Utah, which is pretty heavily Mormon. But I'm not sure all Mormons "advertise." Especially in a heavily Mormon place.
  14. Maybe some weird bullpup thing in a small caliber, but not a bolt-action rifle if that reporting is accurate.
  15. Um, yeah, most apprehensions of criminals are happy accidents, maybe helped along a bit by dumbassedness on the part of the perp. See Luigi, see this guy. I didn't follow the Kohlberger thing that closely, but wouldn't be surprised if a simple traffic stop led to his arrest.
  16. Nintendo switch. Clearly not the stock of a rifle.
  17. You're making some weird, partially informed legal statements. Sup with that? What does the finder of fact have to do with a legal interpretation of an executive order? Why do you mention Amarillo, in the Northern District of Texas, when eaTme is in the Southern. Other than the presiding judge there? Why mention Tyler and Marshall, when one has a Trump appointee and the other Obama? You seem to suggest if there's a legal cause of action for this and there probably is, that it should be resolved in the most ideological courts in the nation.
  18. Do you even know how your team works? And, as a government institution, is governed by the First Amendment, which has considerably more force than an Executive Order, which has almost no force and in this case is no more than a statement of opinion.
  19. One other thing that I thought bizarre about Kirk-Newsom is that Kirk said two related things. First, he said Democrats (and he kept saying "Democrat party" where the addition of party dulls that a little bit but it's still that dumbass Democrat thing) didn't do long-form podcasts (that much is true). But he also said something to the effect that they lacked the intellect or flexibility to do so. And then went on to say there's no debate in the Democratic party. And went on to say there was healthy debate among Republicans. That was laughable bullshit. There was a takeaway from that though. Democrats have tons of internal debate, it's fractured as hell, it's just never resolved is the problem. Republicans get resolution in terms of whatever Trump wants. And it gets ignored when Trump flip flops on the resolution with the popularity wind and/or personal pique. He was very much a demagoguery enabler, if not a demagogue himself. Also very, very savvy about internet media. Related note. Just finished Careless People by accident. Trump's people manipulated Facebook in ways Facebook wasn't even aware of until after the fact, using its demographic tools to persuade and dissuade voters in the 2016 election. The Republicans have become extremely adept at using behind-the-scenes techniques to persuade and tilt the playing field in their favor, far far ahead of Democrats. Even still, without Trump's bizarre appeal to dumbasses, I don't think they are where they are.
  20. MIght want to revise that to Supreme Court. Because, again, the judicial branch is really the only thing standing in Trump's way. I don't love the Supreme Court. It has always been almost exclusively a political entity when it comes to political issues, ie Calvinball. They also happen to do regular, actual law. It just so happens that sometimes what people think is a nakedly political decision is really more of an application of law. Sometimes, more rarely, what appears to be a strictly or fairly "legal" decision is nakedly political. It has to be something of an accident, a lucky one for the right, that the Roberts court learned to use and abuse the shadow docket in favor of Trump/executive power. Because if and when these cases come up on the merits, and they do what they did on the shadow docket but with reasoning this time, shit's going to get even more unpleasant for them.
  21. I am intrigued by Oxbridge and that level of British education. From here, it seems to be more rigorous than US university education. But I can't really be sure. I work with Oxbridge educated lawyers on a pretty regular basis and they're sharp, no question, but I can't say moreso than US lawyers.
×
×
  • Create New...