Lurker > Intro2Logic

Poker Face

Humble_Novice posted...

They're asking for another civil war if they dare to do that.

Liberals said this about overturning Roe v. Wade.

thronedfire2 posted...

yeah adding a couple now might sound great..until a republican gets elected president and adds 5 more

The Supreme Court will have a conservative majority during the next Republican presidency. This is just a debate over whether it should have one during Democratic presidencies, too.

itachi15243 posted...

Honestly, even if Biden was open to expanding the court, it's better to wait and make sure Trump isn't elected again before we even think of touching that slippery slope.

There's always going to be a future Republican. In 2027 people will be saying "we should make sure Kelli Ward (or whoever) isn't elected before the President weilds any power.

Their father founded a major financial company in the 80s and is worth nine figures.

How would this affect your feelings?

BobbaDukes posted...

No, it's you only being able to imagine situations in which there's room for reasonable doubt. People have literally done the most terrible s*** you can think of and BRAGGED about how they're going to get away with it because they either have the courts in their pocket or know there's not enough proof/evidence to bring about a conviction. And they were proven correct.

Do you think these situations outweigh, in importance, the estimated 4 percent of prisoners who are innocent?

A_Good_Boy posted...

How does the accuracy of a Ben Shapiro smear impact my life?

Who else are you believing smears about? How would you know?

A_Good_Boy posted...

The dude's a clown, who cares why he's being mocked? It's like complaining about people talking s*** about Charlie Kirk's tiny face. Who cares?

I'm not here to defend Ben Shapiro. It's a funny joke! But there's an important difference between laughing at satire and assuming it is real.

A_Good_Boy posted...

Does it really matter when he's argued shit similar to this in real life already?

It does matter. Believing convenient falsehoods is an extremely bad habit to get into.

"Poe's law" is a justification you give yourself for believing whatever you want to be real.

It's funny and all but the eagerness which some people will believe a screencapped quote like this is the most distressing thing ITT. You have to be better at understanding the internet than this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6VjPM5CeWs

We do not have democratic control over China in the way that we ostensibly do over our own country. "Do you think the US should pay for climate damages in poorer countries who suffer the effects but not the benefits of our use of fossil fuels?" is a question that can and should be answered on its own. I recognize the importance of international cooperation, but pointing fingers at China when the US is asked whether they'll keep their commitments just seems like evading the question.

I think suspecting someone other than the studios here is a bit like suspecting someone other than OJ in the murder of his wife.

Not even one of the more successful losers
https://twitter.com/AlexShultz/status/1681070166376083458

The article points out that we agreed to do just this at the last climate summit:

The U.S. diplomat is preparing to travel to Beijing in the coming days to discuss the climate crisis with Chinese officials, including plans for the upcoming COP28 conference hosted by the United Arab Emirates.
Last year's agreement to establish a loss and damage fund was hailed as a positive step forward even though it coincided with yet another failure by policymakers to commit to a swift and just phaseout of coal, oil, and gasthe primary sources of further devastation. Fossil fuels are estimated to cause more than $5 trillion in unpaid damages around the globe each year.
Details of the fundincluding which governments will be expected to pay and which will be eligible to receive as well as how much financing will be provided and how it will be distributedare still being worked out.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/kerry-says-no-climate-reparations

The interests of students and the interests of parents are separate things, and I believe that schools should primarily serve the former.

Business masterclass

s0nicfan posted...

Maybe she only has secret and cyber director requires top secret / SCI which she doesn't qualify for?

She's already been acting as Cyber Director

https://twitter.com/lukeoneil47/status/1680583683814588416

I wouldn't let my dog wipe his ass with an article this poorly written.

You are 35, please don't call it a "wittle baby"

This guy is Andrew Yang for right wingers. His campaign will do roughly as well.

An underdevelopment of the American brain, mostly.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/ron-desantis-rupert-murdoch-donald-trump-1234786639/

Every day some stupid guy becomes a cop.

A constitutional amendment, by definition, is not unconstitutional

There's an anecdote about Banksy, where he'd put up some of his work on a wall separating Palestine from Israeli settlements. A local was asked "doesn't it look great?" to which the local responds:
"I don't want it to look great, I hate this fucking wall."

Paper Mario or Bug Fables

Would anyone like to guess who in this topic I have tagged as "internet poisoned"?

For millennia people lived under the yoke of someone else, who had gotten that position through birth or theft.

EthanSilver posted...

It's not that he "believes" the s*** he says either, he just counts on dumber people than him, redcaps, to fall for his shtick to better serve "him."

Functionally there's no difference between him saying stuff because he believes it or him saying stuff because he wants others to think he believes it. People are always trying to make chessmasters out of these billionaires, but sometimes a pipe is just a pipe.

The problem with Adams isn't that he won the general, it's that he won a competitive primary. There were other options that Democrats could have chosen!

spanky1 posted...

This was always the wierd thing about immigrant work to me. You would think conservatives would WANT a bunch of them here. They provide cheap labor which helps big business. That's about as republican as you can get.

They're only cheap if they're vulnerable. Every restriction, every threatened punishment, is the stick that keeps migrant workers from asking for more.

https://twitter.com/sadvil/status/1676711722000736257

Did your parents lie when they told you about Santa?

Why do I need the border defended?

TimeCrisis posted...

Florida has also invalidated out-of-state driver's licenses that are given to undocumented immigrants.

Personally I think people should be licensed drivers if they're on the same road as me.

lilORANG posted...

There's a reason the other 2 branches of government are regularly called the "political branches"

Please offer a single citation of this term being used in this way.

TheShadowViper posted...

Any progressive "oh I want this" without expanding the courts is fanciful jibberish. It is the only way short of waiting decades.

This gets at a thought I've had for a bit: even if all you want is basic liberal policy, basic liberal tactics can no longer get you there. It is only through a radical change to the institutions at hand that liberal policy can be protected from a judicial branch that otherwise has lifetime appointments to rule all your progress out of bounds.

What do you think "apolitical" means, exactly?

lilORANG posted...

The Court is supposed to be apolitical.

This is tooth fairy shit. There isn't a world in which an apolotical court is even possible.

nexigrams posted...

The number of justices has changed before, multiple times, and it never got politicized.

It actually was highly politicized the last time the number increased. Like, kids learn about it in high school

TMOG posted...

Not planning to make one because I don't trust Facebook/Meta at all, but

Why would you want to stay on Musk's Twitter when non-alt-right alternatives are becoming available?

Not sure we can safely claim this about Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg.

More or less impossible under the current constitution with the conditions at play.

You can't build a Twitter replacement atop an app for attractive people. The vibes are gonna be all wrong.

https://twitter.com/Nash076/status/1591016338440749056?t=PwoTxytwfWvmWbzCLxv-wQ&s=19

Update:
https://techcrunch.com/2023/07/05/twitter-silently-removes-login-requirement-for-viewing-tweets/

They just fucked something up big time over the weekend and threw up these "policies" to plug the hole.

EvilResident posted...

Easy disagree. Id rather have Trump back

Why