Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
LastLast
  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by shimerra View Post
    For people like you supporting terrible things seems to be a positive.

    Your hand wringing about Hillary rings hollow as you happily cheerlead a man who enacted literal government sanctioned kid napping and had to regularly be told things like maybe it's not a great idea to shoot missiles into Mexico.
    As opposed to a guy who literally blew up an entire family. War is bad m’kay? I make no apologies for opposing it.

  2. #62
    Immortal unfilteredJW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Seagrove Beach, FL
    Posts
    7,439
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    As opposed to a guy who literally blew up an entire family. War is bad m’kay? I make no apologies for opposing it.
    This certainly says a lot.
    Blessed are the fornicates, may we bend down to be their whores. Blessed are the rich, may our labor deliver them more.
    Blessed are the envious; bless the slothful, the wrathful, the vain. Blessed are the gluttonous, may they feast us to famine and war.
    What of the pious, the pure of heart, the peaceful, the meek, the mourning, and the merciful? All doomed, all doomed

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Fugus View Post
    You keep trying to hold Clinton to a lower standard than we hold Democrats, so you can hang that up.

    When it comes to Republicans, we have talked plenty of times over the years about how if a Republican comes out against racism or bigotry in any real way that they will snub their voters and run them off. Those voters are monsters who deserved to be snubbed and ran off but you openly admit that doing that isn't the fault of the voter who refused to vote for them, it would be on the politician for turning their back on those monstrous voters.

    Stop holding Clinton to a lower standard than even that. Her actions ran her voters off, her actions ran off my vote. Not Trump, not the GOP, not Russia, not Sanders, Clinton's actions personally.

    Unless you are saying that Clinton had zero part in this:
    https://fortune.com/2016/07/24/wasse...nton-campaign/

    Because that was the final straw for me.

    So, said it before, can said it again. No amount of white knighting for Clinton will have her fuck you any harder than she did in 2016, so stop trying. It won't change the results of that election but making the mistake she made may very well cost future elections if they try and repeat it hoping for a different outcome.
    I think the point hes making is that Americans insist on voting for a person instead of voting for their policies.

    The republicans dont vote on policies either though, they’re just supporting their team. Still gives them a more reliable voter base though, and that’s a problem.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Veggie50 View Post
    I think the point hes making is that Americans insist on voting for a person instead of voting for their policies.

    The republicans dont vote on policies either though, they’re just supporting their team. Still gives them a more reliable voter base though, and that’s a problem.
    Understood and I agree, got family who calls Democrats devil worshipers to justify the evil stuff he has supported.

    I apologize and am not trying to be mean anything but the moderation has came into this and said we need to drop the Clinton stuff which has derailed this thread since it was brought up on page 1. The same people have derailed multiple threads trying this same stuff.
    Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
    "mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
    to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by fwc577 View Post
    This. I kind of feel that since the bid to expand the Supreme Court failed last year, they're doing whatever they can right now in case Democrats get enough of a majority to attempt expansion after the midterms.
    They don't seem to realise they've made a rod for their own backs, though. Pretty much every member of the Supreme Court is on record as saying Roe v Wade is settled law. They're revisiting it anyway.

    This means any supposed "settled law" can be revisited. Anything they do can therefore be undone when the pendulum swings the other way (and it always does).

    That's the danger of ignoring precedent: if you don't respect it in one area, it's back on the table in all areas, including the decision you just made.

  6. #66
    The Insane Glorious Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    18,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Ausr View Post
    This 100%. Reason why Democrats tend to lose is because of exactly that. The party has no balls to just fall in line and get things done like their Republican counterparts.
    Right. They are big and dumb like the lenny. It has its advantages. It's also the most disgusting and naked form of partisanship you can shake a stick at. Not sure its a model worth replicating but for its efficacy unfortunately. Sean Connery said it best in the rock. Winners go home and fuck the prom queen.
    Last edited by Glorious Leader; 2022-05-18 at 08:40 PM.
    The hammer comes down:
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Normal should be reduced in difficulty. Heroic should be reduced in difficulty.
    And the tiny fraction for whom heroic raids are currently well tuned? Too bad,so sad! With the arterial bleed of subs the fastest it's ever been, the vanity development that gives you guys your own content is no longer supportable.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Drutt View Post
    This means any supposed "settled law" can be revisited. Anything they do can therefore be undone when the pendulum swings the other way (and it always does).

    That's the danger of ignoring precedent: if you don't respect it in one area, it's back on the table in all areas, including the decision you just made.
    Thanks to lifetime appointments they don't really need to worry about this for the next 20-30 years, though. So they're probably fine with that.

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Trifle View Post
    Thanks to lifetime appointments they don't really need to worry about this for the next 20-30 years, though. So they're probably fine with that.
    Depends on if they push hard enough that the Democrats end with a large enough majority to expand the courts and so much public will that they aren’t allowed to throw away doing the right thing.

    Which also why they are trying to make it easier to rig elections with money.
    Since we can't call out Trolls and Bad Faith posters and the Ignore function doesn't actually ignore it. Add
    "mmo-champion.com##li.postbitignored"
    to your ublock or adblock filter to actually ignore ignored posters. Now just need a way to ignore responses to them as well.

  9. #69
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    34,902
    Quote Originally Posted by D3thray View Post
    Or. Or. She supported legitimately terrible things. Like bombing even more children. The amount of hand wringing about Bernie bros smh. And you wonder why Democrats keep chasing off people who would otherwise vote for them.

    And then Trump ended up droning children and putting them in cages and stealing them from their parents instead. Funny how that works eh? Also, I like how Hillary's support of a no fly zone over Syria turned into "She wants to bomb children"

    But on topic, who's ready for even more campaign finance reforms that go the WRONG direction? Like Republicans just going full "You can now accept donations from foreign governments". You don't think this shit will happen, but in 2010 I never foresaw the 2022 supreme court bullshit either.

    This country has been sliding backwards dramatically ever since the 2016 election. 514 judges across most branches of government issues, all conservative shills. You people think they're going to stop at overturning Roe Vs Wade, and making campaign donations a lot easier to receive? LOL, this is just barely the beginning of what they hope to do with the judicial branch packed full of Trump-tier crazies.

    Edit: Been trying to think of things conservatives could potentially do with control of all these courts. While they couldn't touch a lot of legislation that I'm sure they'd love to, there are things like Brown vs Board of Education. While they couldn't strike down the Civil Rights act, it wouldn't be outside of the imagination to think they'd go for things like that.
    Last edited by Cthulhu 2020; 2022-05-19 at 04:43 AM.
    Plenty of people have been holding their breath waiting for me to fail. I think they all suffocated years ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zython View Post
    Just came here to remind people that the right has no moral conscious. If they ever try to morally scold you, it's not because they think what you're doing is wrong. Is because it's effective, and want to discourage you from doing it.

  10. #70
    Yeah, damn Bernie Bros being the cause of all of US's problems, or something.

  11. #71
    Good decision. Good majority opinion. In a rare case for arguments on standing, there was a funny bit included.
    These arguments have an Alice in Wonderland air about them, with the Government arguing that appellees would not violate the statute by repaying Cruz, and the appellees arguing that they would
    Government: But Mr. Cruz, what you did was legal under the law! You're good to go, except for this this minor government regulatory approach to the law, but the law isn't your problem!
    Court: Are you high? The law empowers the FEC to do this, so it's of course a challenge to the law, and he has standing.


    The opinion includes good Roberts trashing of the government's inability to provide evidence of corruption that the FEC wants to believe it's fighting.
    Government: Ok, we don't have evidence of any corruption ever taking place from campaigns repaying loans the candidates took out to fund their campaign. But we do have some hypotheticals about access and influence!
    Court: You don't have evidence, and hypotheticals aren't proof of corruption justifying limits on First Amendment rights. You can't just posit the existence of a disease sought to be cured to justify burdening speech.
    Government: What about these media reports and anecdotes?
    Court: How strange, constituents supporting candidates that hold their beliefs and interests, and then the candidates, once elected, are very responsive to their concerns. Much corruption. Huge surprise.
    Government: We've got an academic article, a poll, and statements from Senators!
    Court: Article admits authors can't differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate changes in voting patterns, and only exists as a first step in understanding the topic. The poll made no attempts to ask questions relevant to this law subsection, and used too-broad definitions. And a few straw floor statements from Senators don't constitute evidence.


    Perhaps to make up for its evidentiary shortcomings, the Government falls back on what it calls a “common sense” analogy
    Roberts is ruthless.

    The analogy also proves too much. By the Government’s logic, post-election contributions to retire candidate loans are little different from gifts given directly to the candidate. But that logic is belied by how the Government treats the two categories of purported “gifts.”[...] Either the Government is openly tolerating a significant number of “gifts” far more generous than what it would normally think fit to allow, or post-election contributions that go toward retiring campaign debt are in no real sense “gifts” to a candidate. We find the latter answer more persuasive.
    The government has suspect logic, boys.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  12. #72
    Over 9000! Kathranis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    9,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Fugus View Post
    Depends on if they push hard enough that the Democrats end with a large enough majority to expand the courts and so much public will that they aren’t allowed to throw away doing the right thing.

    Which also why they are trying to make it easier to rig elections with money.
    They're also aggressively blaming inflation, gas prices, and baby formula shortages on Biden while actively making the problems worse.

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Good decision. Good majority opinion.
    No one is surprised that you are pro corruption.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    No one is surprised that you are pro corruption.
    "All speech is equal, but some speech is more equal than others."

  15. #75
    Holy shit this is about money given AFTER the election. This makes it magnitudes worse than I thought, woooooowwwww
    "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
    -Louis Brandeis

  16. #76
    The Unstoppable Force Kaleredar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    24,061
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Good decision. Good majority opinion. In a rare case for arguments on standing, there was a funny bit included. Government: But Mr. Cruz, what you did was legal under the law! You're good to go, except for this this minor government regulatory approach to the law, but the law isn't your problem!
    Court: Are you high? The law empowers the FEC to do this, so it's of course a challenge to the law, and he has standing.


    The opinion includes good Roberts trashing of the government's inability to provide evidence of corruption that the FEC wants to believe it's fighting.
    Government: Ok, we don't have evidence of any corruption ever taking place from campaigns repaying loans the candidates took out to fund their campaign. But we do have some hypotheticals about access and influence!
    Court: You don't have evidence, and hypotheticals aren't proof of corruption justifying limits on First Amendment rights. You can't just posit the existence of a disease sought to be cured to justify burdening speech.
    Government: What about these media reports and anecdotes?
    Court: How strange, constituents supporting candidates that hold their beliefs and interests, and then the candidates, once elected, are very responsive to their concerns. Much corruption. Huge surprise.
    Government: We've got an academic article, a poll, and statements from Senators!
    Court: Article admits authors can't differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate changes in voting patterns, and only exists as a first step in understanding the topic. The poll made no attempts to ask questions relevant to this law subsection, and used too-broad definitions. And a few straw floor statements from Senators don't constitute evidence.


    Roberts is ruthless.

    The government has suspect logic, boys.
    can you enumerate on how this is a good decision, other than that this allows corporations to more directly pump money into your chosen politician's pockets?
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  17. #77
    The Insane Glorious Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    In my bunker leading uprisings
    Posts
    18,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    No one is surprised that you are pro corruption.
    His entire post reads like trolling
    The hammer comes down:
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Normal should be reduced in difficulty. Heroic should be reduced in difficulty.
    And the tiny fraction for whom heroic raids are currently well tuned? Too bad,so sad! With the arterial bleed of subs the fastest it's ever been, the vanity development that gives you guys your own content is no longer supportable.

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleredar View Post
    can you enumerate on how this is a good decision, other than that this allows corporations to more directly pump money into your chosen politician's pockets?
    The biting parts I pulled from the decision. Maybe you can start by telling me what you don't understand about the post you quoted?
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  19. #79
    The Unstoppable Force Kaleredar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    24,061
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    The biting parts I pulled from the decision. Maybe you can start by telling me what you don't understand about the post you quoted?
    You didn't comment on any of them. You just linked a block of text. The closest you came to opining was that "the government has no corruption."


    Which, uh... hot take, I guess. Guess there's no swamp that needs draining, after all?
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleredar View Post
    You didn't comment on any of them. You just linked a block of text. The closest you came to opining was that "the government has no corruption."

    Which, uh... hot take, I guess. Guess there's no swamp that needs draining, after all?
    The paraphrase is my comment on the decision. You're quoting it, but really dismissing the post as some "block of text," shows you have no real value in the interaction. Like, you can get your jollies mocking and trolling about pro-corruption, but are you really needing a response like "Sounds like Kalredar loves incumbents perma winning, the way he digs handicapping opponent fundraising?"
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •