Recent content by Silvanus

Look, man. You're the one who brought this stuff up again. If you didn't want people to point out that your own source contradicted you (yet again), then you should have read it properly. All this desperation to talk about anything except the topic you just brought back up is just embarrassing...

Democrats (& Sanders) reintroduced M4A bills in 2023 (x2), 2022, 2021, 2019 (x2), 2017 (x2), 2015, 2013 (etc).

You wasted your time and money.

Similar situation to Canada in Australia? As recently as March, the conservative Liberal-National coalition was leading in the polls. Now there's been a very quick reversal of fortunes and the Labor Party is winning something of a landslide. Once again the conservative leader loses his seat...

Nope, we're discussing tariffs right now. You're the one who brought tariffs back up, and now you're desperately trying to shift the topic off them? I don't know how you're not embarrassed when this stuff happens. You post a link, it's immediately pointed out that it contradicts you...

Notice was not given. There was no opportunity to request judicial review or habeas. They were taken to the airport the morning after the order was given, and that order wasn't public at the time. Multiple federal courts have stated that is insufficient. Recurring reminder: you are defending...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crkx3egk3ygo The HHS is planning placebo trials for new vaccines. These were previously disallowed due to the obvious ethical problem-- a subset of people seeking vaccines will be misled, given nothing effective, and left unprotected against the disease...

I suppose. The President of the United States was recently using photoshops he saw online as evidence of gang membership, after all. Though admittedly there seems to be a higher barrier of entry for average British civil servants than there is for the US President.

To link to the text itself, and highlight an explicit section of the conclusion; "The Court has concluded that J.A.V., J.G.G., and W.G.H., in their individual capacity and as representatives of the certified class, have demonstrated entitlement to relief in habeas. Respondents have designated...

Nobody has said that's what's required. Those two federal courts have very explicitly said what is required. And it was not followed.

And then you made lots of other claims, such as that there won't be any blanket tariffs. And you asked us to tell you when they happened. Then they happened, and we told you, as you had requested. And now you're whining that we did what you asked.

If your position was "prices won't go up for this TV", then why did you state it as "there won't be blanket tariffs"? Because the claim you actually made about tariffs has completely fallen apart, but you seem to be trying to rebut that by reasserting some irrelevant waffle about a television...

I already posted these earlier in the thread, but I'll post it again since you ask; https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca4.178400/gov.uscourts.ca4.178400.8.0.pdf "It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all...

I beg you, go back and read the ruling from the federal appeals court posted earlier. It very clearly explains all this-- the processes that are due, the entitlements, and how they weren't followed.

The specifics of what are due have been explained several times. Not "only two days". None. People were not told their status had changed, were told nothing, and some were taken to the airport the morning after the order had been made-- even though it hadn't been made public. That is a denial...