Total posts: 1,942
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
Thankfully, he's fine.
Good on you for genuinely expressing this. It is a sentiment which is in doubtful supply in these troubled times…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok. So if other candidates are a distant second choice or worse, voters can choose to override RCV given enough numbers by only selecting one candidate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It looks as though selecting a 2nd choice robs your first choice of its power. Knowing this, what is to stop voters from only putting down a first choice?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Hope you had a great 4th!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
It strikes me as another version of “Today is a brand new day.” I think it contradicts her promotion of equity, though, which is a concept very much “burdened by what has been.”
Created:
-->
@Tidycraft
Maybe so. It’s just that “deny” really needs to be in there twice. It could be the 6 D’s perhaps…
Created:
-->
@Double_R
A meaningless question
It was a, uh… rhetorical question. That you dismiss it as “meaningless” is, yet again, you adhering to your “5 D’s of debate.”
then spare me your opinion of me, it couldn't be any more worthless.
Yet you insist on posting to me unsolicited.
It's clear which one of us is close minded on this subject.
“No one cares.” <— Your words, not mine, Lex.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Note that you haven't even attempted to provide a single rational substantive defense of your position or scrutiny of mine with regards to what the ruling says or how it applies, only characterizations and insinuations.
Ah, yes… the “5 D’s” of your debate playbook: deny, dismiss, distrust, discredit, and deny. If understanding this decision is a 12 story building (in fairness, it isn’t exactly EASY to comprehend properly, as are most such cases) one cannot even get you into the front door without you kicking and screaming in protest. Your opinion of this ruling is mirrored, almost verbatim, in an egregious Vox article:
(Not to accuse you of getting your opinion straight from this article originally, just that every left leaning media outlet seems to embrace Sotomayor’s embarrassing take)
If the extremely detailed and authoritative opinion of the Chief Justice failed to lead you to understanding, what hope does a layperson you have already decided to dismiss have? Seriously, dude…
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Yeah, it’s truly a shame seeing as how genuinely open and curious you are regarding these sorts of things…
(And again, THAT was sarcasm)
Created:
-->
@Double_R
If Trump should get re-elected, basically one of two things will happen:
A. You will be a prisoner in your own mind, trapped in the nightmare that is your paranoia, enabled by your feeble but stubborn understanding of this ruling.
B. You will eventually realize you were wrong about this.
Who am I kidding? It’s definitely going to be A…
A. You will be a prisoner in your own mind, trapped in the nightmare that is your paranoia, enabled by your feeble but stubborn understanding of this ruling.
B. You will eventually realize you were wrong about this.
Who am I kidding? It’s definitely going to be A…
I will leave you to waste someone else’s time with your prevarications.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
No one cares.
Good to know you speak for everyone… everyone that matters, I guess. If YOU don’t care, why did you posit your doomsday scenario fever dream as an example of what could very well happen? You’re all over the place on this, but I don’t wonder why.
I don't know why you think I'm not following what you're saying, I've addressed this twice already.
Well, you have just now registered understanding of what I’m talking about. Second, when I asked “Do you understand?” your answer was “No.”
What we care about is what this will mean for everyone else.
Well then, you should have come up with a hypothetical earlier to match your true concern here instead of wasting my time. As things stand now, your understanding of this ruling is severely limited (as is left leaning media’s representation of the ruling— coincidence?) to that of Justice Sotomayor, who gave basically a “the sky is falling!”, unprofessional dissent written at the undergraduate level. Chief Justice Roberts could barely disguise his incredulity in his response to her dissent. Sotomayor’s writing and jurisprudence has always been at the undergraduate student level, but the unhinged aspect is presumably because Biden’s reelection prospects are faltering.
Nope— no partisan blinders going on around here! (Now, THAT is sarcasm)
Nope— no partisan blinders going on around here! (Now, THAT is sarcasm)
Created:
-->
@thett3
Exactly! THANK YOU. Geesh… someone gets it…
The chief justice even called out her hysteria in the majority opinion.
Justice Roberts— who I guess qualifies as MAGA now?— was barely able to disguise his incredulity in his response to the hysteric claims of Justice Sotomayor. I guess Biden’s debate performance has fried her already delicate circuits…
Created:
-->
@Double_R
No, because what you're saying seems to defy basic English. Immunity by definition means the immunized person cannot be prosecuted, therefore the only way to violate this is to prosecute them.
*facepalm* That is what I’m saying!! Dang, man…
Try and follow this:
If Trump… were to prosecute Biden and his administration… as you just imagined that happening… in your post addressed to me… that would violate Biden’s entitlement to the immunity that SCOTUS just ruled in favor of.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
In other words, the scenario you describe would be a violation of executive immunity, not a fulfillment of it. Do you understand what I am saying?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
shows how unserious you are to talk to.
Yet you insist on initiating conversation with me regardless.
Clearly, you haven't bothered to absorb a word I've said.
Back atcha, Lex.
Again, no one cares about this including MAGA
*sigh* I am asking this in the context of the very nightmare scenario you conjured up! Please read it again because I don’t know how to simplify the concept further.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Wow… how melodramatic. In your own words: “Republican fantasies about prosecuting Joe Biden have always been ridiculous…” Perhaps that doesn’t apply to Democrat nightmares about Republican persecution somehow…
Well, at the very least, what about Biden’s ability to claim immunity to such prosecution? And anyone operating under Biden’s authority in a legitimately Constitutional capacity? (Which is what I have been trying to point out all along— as I said “perhaps futile”)
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Trump can do whatever he wants, and the rest of us can do nothing about it.
Can you give a hypothetical example of how your claim could play out?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The idea that democrats should be breathing some sigh of relief from this is silly.
Well, when you characterize the Politico quote in that sarcastic manner, it does sound a bit silly. The search for a publication you are able to respect whose substance supports what I am saying goes on…
Trump can do whatever he wants, and the rest of us can do nothing about it.
Ah, just like what Vox says. Unsurprisingly, THAT is a publication you can respect. But you have already conceded that a Seal team assassination hypothetical (which falls under the scope of “can do whatever”) is a bit dramatic even for you. Why the dramatic conclusion now?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
“The decision to bless nearly all official presidential conduct as immune from prosecutorial scrutiny also has ramifications for Biden. Republicans have repeatedly suggested that their allies in government should consider charging Biden with crimes for actions ranging from his handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal to the flow of migrants over the southern border. Those policy considerations would be clearly beyond the reach of prosecutors under the Supreme Court’s analysis.”
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I guess we are lucky the Supreme Court doesn't have those partisan blinders on... right?
Only time will tell.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Sarcasm?
More like facetiousness. AS IF Trump is going to get elected… again! Also, I am attempting (probably futile) to point out how this ruling does not provide protection solely to Trump, but acknowledging that requires an objective prospective without partisan blinders on.
Created:
Looks as though this ruling could really hamper Trump making good on his promise of retribution if he gets elected…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Pretty much! As my wife has been saying for the last three years, “The DNC have a lot to answer for.” Add to that Jill— excuse me— Dr. Jill Biden.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
What’s surprising is that so many in the party and media are surprised now. That, or they are merely acting surprised when the issue can no longer be denied…
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Here’s a good counterpoint analysis of this situation:
Created:
-->
@WyIted
… and refusing to be checked for hidden ear pieces
There’s actually historical precedent for this:
Created:
Posted in:
noun: Zionism
- a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.
More in depth:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
i think this has more to do with the idea of an "ethno-state"
What is “this” referring to? If “this” refers to the debate you posted, then you will have to show the clock times where this is clarified by the people who won the debate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
From what I have observed, it is really all a matter of how one frames the definition of Zionism. If one defines anti-Zionism as “I am highly critical of how Israel’s leadership treats and has treated Palestinians,” then one will probably have the upper hand in that debate, or it will merely be a debate involving clashing definitions. If one must abide by the definition as “I don’t believe the Jewish people should have their own homeland,” then all bets are off (other than for the Zionist, of course).
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Putin has publicly said he prefers U.S. President Joe Biden to his predecessor and aspiring successor Donald Trump, a remark widely interpreted to mean exactly the opposite, as the former KGB man hopes his notoriety will boost the Republican mogul.
Ha! Precisely how the Russian leader wants US voters to interpret his remarks! Or is it the other way around in reverse?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
What is their name?
Clayton Bigsby
Created:
Even better— I give you a white supremacist who happens to be black:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Here’s a good article on the matter:
No one can say with authority how big a deal this is, though…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Hmm… this should be a pretty big deal, but the major outlets don’t seem to even give it a mention. This will have consequences, they just aren’t immediate…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Ah, ok. When you claimed “it’s not possible,” you were leaving wide open what “it” was referring to and even your post 15 made “it” sound like traveling to heaven by rocket. You have now made “it” clear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Don’t get people started on Trump, now…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
But you are the one saying what’s impossible in post 13… and using the present tense…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
If it is impossible to take a rocket to the kingdom of heaven, how could one debunk its existence via rocket travel?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I have noticed a vast range of goalpost moving when it comes to progressives’ expectations of social progress. It seems to comprise these phases:
1. Tolerance and civility
2. Total acceptance
3. Celebration!
4. Hatred of those who aren’t at stage 2 (could be swapped for #3)
5. Hatred of those who aren’t at stage 3
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
they never made it to the kingdom of heaven
Maybe they did but were sworn to secrecy. Who knows?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
Buzz Aldrin, the second person to set foot on the Moon, celebrated the Christian rite of communion before doing so. The journey didn’t seem to debunk it for him…
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Wow— you can actually see the Matrix.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
As Wylted already pointed out, I think the moral framework is that Truth is superior to a comfortable lie. Also note that the movie pointed out that the lie could not be too comfortable as that was a failure. So, another facet might be that humans need some obstacles to give their lives meaning.
Funny— when I saw the title, I thought your moral issue was going to be how killing some of the innocent people plugged into the matrix was both necessary in self defense and acceptable as they were essentially part of the lie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Oh, there aren’t too many whites like Robert Downey, Jr.:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Are sizzlin’ moves an aspect of whiteness, too? No…
Created: