I found a neat site:
Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
- Status
Love it! 29 days to go.I found a neat site:
Yeah but those are Democratic ballots, its not like real Americans are being harmed.
My stance is that any organisation usually requires a certain degree of order. When the man at the top manufactures disorder, it sends a shockwave of disorder through the whole system as people try to compensate for it.
One day, perhaps, you might be prepared to look back and realise just how much of a shitshow of incompetence and chaos Trump was, but I can tell you're not ready yet.
So you're saying I should give up on you realizing how ridiculously exaggerated your view of Trump is? Like, you're so extreme in your judgment of Trump, I think you're actively thinking more highly of other people so there's more room to separate him out from others. Donald Trump is not a single horrible incompetent in a field of otherwise competent presidents. Frankly, Donald Trump is an average Democratic president, which is not particularly high praise. But that's ok, because we have an entire governmental system, with checks, balances, seperation of powers. You know, all that jazz. And it all worked out fine. Not cause Donald Trump is a super great stable genius, but because his powers as president are limited and what he did he listened to smarter people for most of it.
You're letting your perspective of the man dictate your perspective of the entire US government, and that's dumb.
Fun thing we all missed with the story of Justice Roberts being heard screaming from behind a closed door that they need to dismiss the Texas case because there will be riots if the do the right thing: the Supreme court isn't meeting in person because of Covid. They're doing Zoom calls. There is no one at the actual court.
Well no, that the Supreme court isn't meeting in person isn't just one of your wild, baseless, fact less claims. See here in the future we make sure our statements are true before we say them. So I checked and yeah the Supreme court meeting remotely not in person.
Can you share that proof with the rest of the class?
Just holding you all to the same standard of evidence you hold all the republican whistle-blowers to. Nothing they say or see seems to matter and can easily be dismissed.
Please, you haven't cared about facts or sources this entire thread, lets not pretend you're capable of absorbing new information or changing your mind. But because I like being right:
Supreme Court to kick off new term remotely with telephone arguments
The coronavirus pandemic forced the Supreme Court to close its doors and alter the way the justices hear arguments.
www.cbsnews.com
Justices to continue remote arguments through the end of the year - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would continue to hear oral argument by telephone for the rest of the calendar year. In a press release from the court’s Public Information Office, the court indicated that, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the justices and lawyers will participate
www.scotusblog.com
None of these say anything about Justices not meeting together to discuss things among themselves, but rather, describe hearing oral arguments from the plaintiffs.Please, you haven't cared about facts or sources this entire thread, lets not pretend you're capable of absorbing new information or changing your mind. But because I like being right:
Supreme Court to kick off new term remotely with telephone arguments
The coronavirus pandemic forced the Supreme Court to close its doors and alter the way the justices hear arguments.
Justices to continue remote arguments through the end of the year - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would continue to hear oral argument by telephone for the rest of the calendar year. In a press release from the court’s Public Information Office, the court indicated that, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the justices and lawyers will participate
So, got anything else?
They literally do say the Justices are not meeting in person. Try again little one
From your first link:
From your third link:
Oral arguments held remotely by telephone.
Nothing about not meeting in person to discuss things.
Oh, I get it, you must think that "oral arguments" means "Justices arguing among themselves orally", which would explain your confusion.
Here's a link that may help you understand what oral arguments are, in this context:
Oral argument - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Its okay little one, I know reading is difficult for someone in your situation. And admitting you're only semi-literate is the first step in getting better, and don't worry we're here to help you.
Here Ill show you something you weren't able to read:
"The justices and lawyers will participate in the arguments scheduled for the November and December arguments sessions remotely, with live audio available to the public. In keeping with public health guidance in response to COVID-19, the Justices and counsel will all participate remotely"
And I know you struggle with definitions and words, so I'll give you the definition of Remotely: from a distance; without physical contact.
I know its embarrassing, but trust me learning to read is a wonderful skill you have, and you really shouldn't feel any shame struggling at it.
Yes, that's what I said. That's talking about oral arguments. See that word in red?
This quote doesn't say what you think it's saying. It's not saying "None of the Justices will ever meet together in person for any reason whatsoever".
Just arguments. Just oral arguments.
For further proof, can we listen to the deliberations that the Justices have amongst themselves? Why not? Doesn't your quote say that the live audio would be available to the public? So shouldn't be be able to hear everything they did or didn't say about the Texas case? Oh, what's that, the live audio only refers to the oral arguments? Well then there you go, you admit that oral arguments and private deliberations are two different things and that procedures for one may not necessarily be the procedures for the other.
Last edited:
Well, that would mean we have the same standard of evidence for both conflicting possibilities. How's about we just disregard both sources and stop listening to hearsay altogether?
- Status