Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,041
3,132
118
I hope you understand your stance is basically "if people hate the president enough, any action can be justified."
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.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
2,975
388
88
Country
USA
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.
 

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
10,519
983
118
Corner of No and Where

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.
 

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
10,519
983
118
Corner of No and Where
Sounds like hearsay from a random youtuber to me
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.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
762
118
So I checked and yeah the Supreme court meeting remotely not in person.
Can you share that proof with the rest of the class?

Yup you are 100% just screwing with people now. Not even subtle.
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.
 

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
10,519
983
118
Corner of No and Where
Can you share that proof with the rest of the class?
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:



 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
762
118
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:



None of these say anything about Justices not meeting together to discuss things among themselves, but rather, describe hearing oral arguments from the plaintiffs.
So, got anything else?
 

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
10,519
983
118
Corner of No and Where
None of these say anything about Justices not meeting together to discuss things among themselves, but rather, describe hearing oral arguments from the plaintiffs.
So, got anything else?
They literally do say the Justices are not meeting in person. Try again little one
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
762
118
They literally do say the Justices are not meeting in person.
From your first link:

Washington — The Supreme Court will begin its new term, which starts in October, with oral arguments held remotely by telephone due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the court announced Wednesday.
From your third link:

The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would continue to hear oral argument by telephone for the rest of the calendar year.
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:
 

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
10,519
983
118
Corner of No and Where
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.
 

Houseman

Mad Hatter Meme Machine.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
3,910
762
118
"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"
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:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,671
1,362
118
Country
United Kingdom
Sounds like hearsay from a random youtuber to me
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
Not open for further replies.