[!@#$%!]

lol@ sophomore fascists appropriating orwell.

but still, so boring.

 

bye bye igor!

[Silver ✴ Rocket]

Sorry I couldn't keep you entertained, it's hard to keep up with your banter.

[Bytor Peltor]

Originally Posted by Silver ✴ Rocket

You call others bots, but you're the one spamming threads and trying to suppress dialogue.

SR, suppressing dialogue and slinging poo is all symbols knows how to do. Symbols doesn’t offer anything of substance and he completely crumbles with the least bit amount of pushback.

 

[Silver ✴ Rocket]

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil

[h8kurdt]

Nah, he's realised, to quote Mark Twain "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"

[EVOLghost]

 

[EVOLghost]

 

[h8kurdt]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

No, that's NOT misspelled! She's clearly asking "Why is there no two?", the implication being that she has only a Barbie doll to play with, and no Ken doll. She is apparently unaware of the fact that sales of Ken dolls plummeted with the introduction of G.I. Joe, and Barbie clearly preferred the man in uniform to the California beach bum!

Still trying to get my head around what you're talking about here. "Why is there no two?" The fuck is that?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

Never argue with an idiot.

words to live by

Originally Posted by EVOLghost

 

haaahaahaaahaa! yeah...

[The Soup Nazi]

Op-ed in The Washington Post:

The Supreme Court might have to choose between power and principle

Opinion by Fareed Zakaria
Columnist
Oct. 29, 2020 at 8:03 p.m. GMT-3

We know that elections have consequences, but we are often reminded that ideas do, too. That link between abstract ideas and real-world results could prove especially fateful on the day after the presidential election.

At stake is the idea of judicial originalism, which holds, in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, that the U.S. Constitution “means today not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted.” While this assertion has a seductive simplicity, it’s worth noting that this is simply one theory of how the courts should function. The Constitution itself never directs that judges should rule in this manner. In fact, the United States is unusual among advanced democracies in its practice of treating its constitution as a quasi-religious text whose meaning has to be divined chiefly through detailed textual analysis.

Judges in most advanced democracies would argue that all laws are inevitably interpreted based on a mix of original understanding, evolving societal standards and core democratic values. And even in the United States, liberals and conservatives alike accept important deviations from originalism. Otherwise we would still have segregated schools, prohibitions against interracial marriage and laws outlawing homosexuality — all of which were deemed unconstitutional by judges who used the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to do so, even though it cannot be plausibly claimed that was the intent of Congress when it passed that amendment.

Many conservatives have argued that originalism is the only way to ensure that judges stay restrained and modest, not imposing their views on a society that did not elect them. (Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. refers to this as calling “balls and strikes.”) And perhaps the self-styled originalists would accomplish their goal if they actually practiced what they preach. But in fact, the new breed of judicial activists seems to be abandoning the restraint that Roberts prizes and is simply seeking conservative outcomes, using whatever means necessary.

The original sin was the 2000 Supreme Court Bush v. Gore decision, when conservative justices flagrantly violated their long-espoused principles to achieve their preferred political aim. The Constitution is crystal clear that states have final authority over the selection of their electors during a presidential election. Courts had long upheld that view.

And yet, in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court shut down Florida’s recount using a tortuous and novel interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified to give equal rights to Black people in 1868. The writers of that amendment could not possibly have meant that it prohibited different counties within a state from using their own approaches to counting ballots in an election — an utterly unrelated issue and something that was widespread in 1868 when the amendment was passed.

In a brilliant podcast, “Deep Background,” Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman outlines this hypocrisy to Jeffrey Sutton, a federal appeals court judge who sees himself as a conservative originalist. Sutton’s response — to my ear — was that he believed Bush v. Gore had been wrongly decided.

And, in fact, after the ruling, judicial conservatives rarely cited or celebrated its rationale. Scalia’s response was usually three words: “Get over it” — not exactly an intellectual argument. Privately, according to Evan Thomas’s reporting, Scalia said he thought the decision was “a piece of s---.” In the most telling admission of its illogic, the majority opinion contains the remarkable guidance that the decision should be viewed as a one-off and not cited as a precedent — contrary to the intended function of Supreme Court rulings.

Feldman’s podcast series — which is well worth listening to — highlights a growing divide between conservatives who viewed originalism as part of a philosophy of modesty and restraint and new activists who are untroubled by the hypocrisy and simply seek conservative outcomes. It is these activists who have been able to weaken Obamacare (clearly violating the original intent of the legislature that passed it) and invent new rights for corporations that had never before been found in the Constitution (as they did in the notorious Citizens United case).

All this might come to a head next week. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that ballots sent before the end of the election that arrive up to three days late should be counted. The Republican Party appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which still had a vacancy and deadlocked 4 to 4, with the new conservatives plus justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas expressing willingness to intervene, and the liberals, plus Roberts, acting as the voices of judicial restraint.

On Wednesday, if Trump is ahead in Pennsylvania, the Republicans will again ask the court to shut down the vote count. This time, the court cannot deadlock since there is now a ninth justice, Amy Coney Barrett. She will have to decide whether she actually believes in the ideas she and Scalia espoused — or whether, like her mentor, when the stakes are high, she will choose power over principle.

ETA: In other words, if it comes down to this we're fucked.

[The Soup Nazi]

 

[Silver ✴ Rocket]

 

[_tunic_]

Translation of Dutch press article:

Without proof
Trump: Doctors lie about corona deaths to make money


US President Trump says doctors are lying about the number of people who have died from corona because they are getting money for deaths from the virus. The US yesterday reported a new record of corona infections.

Trump made his statements at a campaign meeting. "Our doctors get more money when someone dies from Covid-19. You know that, right?" Trump said. "So they say, I'm sorry, but you know, everyone dies from corona."

The US president did not provide any evidence for his claim. He has been under fire for some time for his approach to the corona virus. The number of cases in the US is still rising. Trump said earlier that this is due to the high number of tests in his country.

Trump says doctors get "about $ 2,000 more" for corona deaths. In other countries, according to Trump, other conditions would be listed as the cause of death, while American doctors choose Covid-19.

Doctors furious

The American Medical Association (AMA) doctors' organization is outraged by Trump's statements. "The suggestion that, in the midst of a health crisis, doctors are counting too many Covid patients, or lying to fill their pockets, is outrageous and completely misguided."

"Rather than attacking us with unfounded accusations, our leaders should insist on wearing face masks, washing hands, and keeping their distance."


© Copyright 2020 RTL

[EVOLghost]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

The little girl seems to be asking "Why is there no God?", but somebody left out the i in dios. Therefor I just had a little fun with what remained. If my understanding of the Spanish sentence is wrong, then I apologize to the Spanish-speaking world!

lolwut? I now see why you support Trump.

[_tunic_]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

[...]
and are further promoting economic opportunity among racial minorties as well as outlawing abortion which primarily affects minorty infants).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_wall


you're building a wall to make it impossible for racial minorities to enter your country.
you have and perhaps still are separating infants from their racial minority parents

[_tunic_]

Well whatever. How about healthcare for minorities?
Covid and Trump: The president's healthcare v the average American's

Also, you speak about freedom of speech. Your President tells anyone that has a different opinion than his - bluntly put - to shut up and stop spreading fake news

[_tunic_]

James Murdoch, son of Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch, says he walked away from family media empire because it legitimizes disinformation and obscures facts



Twitter is a neutral arbiter???????

[!@#$%!]

http://trumplies.us/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factc...ys/ar-BB14RCpH

[choc e-Claire]

Less than 1% more of the US-Mexico border is walled than was in 2016. Regardless of the motives, he's absolutely failed at what was the one most high profile election promise he made.

[Skuj]

Originally Posted by choc e-Claire

Less than 1% more of the US-Mexico border is walled than was in 2016. Regardless of the motives, he's absolutely failed at what was the one most high profile election promise he made.

Yeah, but at least Mexico is paying for it.

Oh....wait.....

(How do the Trumpists square that one? I'm genuinely curious. But not curious enough to unignore them all.)