Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Phoenixmgs]

Lol, that's bollocks.

If you don't see why convicting someone of something like that is important, then you obviously only think Trump should be considered an insurrectionist because you don't like him.

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1230453714/supreme-court-trump-colorado-ballot

"Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the States, responsible for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse," the court decision concluded.

Supreme Court said it's not on the states to enforce the insurrection clause.

Trump spends a lot of time doing the exact same thing - insulting young voters

And...?

Also, did he? I assume probably but I don't really follow much of what Trump says.

 

[Silvanus]

If you don't see why convicting someone of something like that is important [...]

I see that it's very important for things like criminal sentencing. But the Constitution simply doesn't list conviction as a requirement to trigger the 14th Amendment.

Supreme Court said it's not on the states to enforce the insurrection clause.

Indeed, which I always said was likely. It would have been politically very difficult for them to say anything else.

 

[Gergar12]

We need more police and more sane prosecutors.

How To Spot A Credit Card Skimmer

Card skimming theft can affect anyone who uses their credit or debit cards at ATMs, gas stations, restaurants or retail stores. A skimmer is a device installed on card readers that collects card numbers. Thieves will later recover and use this information to make fraudulent purchases. Skimmers can u

www.forbes.com

 

[Silvanus]

We need more police and more sane prosecutors.

How To Spot A Credit Card Skimmer

Card skimming theft can affect anyone who uses their credit or debit cards at ATMs, gas stations, restaurants or retail stores. A skimmer is a device installed on card readers that collects card numbers. Thieves will later recover and use this information to make fraudulent purchases. Skimmers can u

www.forbes.com

Can't help but notice this is the kind of crime that sheer police numbers would have very Little impact on, if any.

This requires a technical solution and/or more effective regulation.

 

[Gergar12]

Can't help but notice this is the kind of crime that sheer police numbers would have very Little impact on, if any.

This requires a technical solution and/or more effective regulation.

Oftentimes it's the business owner who does this. They need to be arrested and have their small business license suspended. But in cities like New York City and LA, their prosecutors are soft on crime and just slap down fines if at all.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I see that it's very important for things like criminal sentencing. But the Constitution simply doesn't list conviction as a requirement to trigger the 14th Amendment.



Indeed, which I always said was likely. It would have been politically very difficult for them to say anything else.

You don't understand what would happen if any other ruling was given. It was impossible for anything else to have happened.

But before disqualifying someone under Section 3, the justices observed, there must be a determination that the provision actually applies to that person. And Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives the power to make that determination to Congress, by authorizing it to pass “appropriate legislation” to “enforce” the 14th Amendment. Nothing in the 14th Amendment, the court stressed, gives states the power to enforce Section 3 against candidates for federal office, nor was there any history of states doing so in the years after the amendment was ratified.

Moreover, the court added, allowing states to enforce Section 3 against candidates for federal office could create a variety of problems. First, although Section 5 requires Congress to tailor any legislation that it enacts to implement Section 3 so that it specifically targets the conduct that Section 3 was adopted to prevent, state efforts to enforce Section 3 would not face this same limitation. “But the notion that the Constitution grants the States freer rein than Congress to decide how Section 3 should be enforced with respect to federal offices is simply implausible,” the court concluded.

Allowing states to enforce Section 3 for federal candidates could result in a scenario in which “a single candidate would be declared ineligible in some States, but not others, based on the same conduct (and perhaps even the same factual record),” the court warned. And that could create a “patchwork” that could “dramatically change the behavior of voters, parties, and States across the country, in different ways and at different times.” “Nothing in the Constitution,” the court wrote, “requires that we endure such chaos.”

 

[Silvanus]

You don't understand what would happen if any other ruling was given. It was impossible for anything else to have happened.

...for political reasons. My argument has been about the political consequences from the start.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

...for political reasons. My argument has been about the political consequences from the start.

It's no different than if this was a rules question in a game. If you give any other answer than the one that was given, it would cause the game to be broken. You can figure out lots of game rules but just being like "well, that can't be the rule because if it is, then you can do that, and that would break the game so that's obviously not the rule."

 

[Silvanus]

It's no different than if this was a rules question in a game. If you give any other answer than the one that was given, it would cause the game to be broken. You can figure out lots of game rules but just being like "well, that can't be the rule because if it is, then you can do that, and that would break the game so that's obviously not the rule."

It's sort of like that, if the 'game' to begin with was a political stitch-up.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

It's sort of like that, if the 'game' to begin with was a political stitch-up.

Nah, I think the democrats actually believed Trump could be off the ballot because they seemed legit disappointed by the ruling. The second I heard that states were removing Trump from the ballot, I'm like "that's pointless, it's just gonna get overturned...". And then people like you are like "well ackchyually, the states have a lot of election powers blah blah blah blah". They don't have that type of power...

 

[Silvanus]

Nah, I think the democrats actually believed Trump could be off the ballot because they seemed legit disappointed by the ruling.

You know several of these challenges were brought by Republicans, right?

The second I heard that states were removing Trump from the ballot, I'm like "that's pointless, it's just gonna get overturned...". And then people like you are like "well ackchyually, the states have a lot of election powers blah blah blah blah". They don't have that type of power...

I'd suggest you improve your reading comprehension a bit, because (for the umpteenth time) I always said the SCOTUS were likely to overturn it.

 

[BrawlMan]

​

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You know several of these challenges were brought by Republicans, right?



I'd suggest you improve your reading comprehension a bit, because (for the umpteenth time) I always said the SCOTUS were likely to overturn it.

Colorado's democratic Secretary of State said this:
January 6 was one of the darkest days in our nation’s history. Donald Trump incited an insurrection and attempted to steal the presidency from the American people.

I hope the US Supreme Court upholds Colorado’s constitutional right to bar oath-breaking insurrections from our presidential primary ballot. Our nation deserves to know whether an insurrectionist may hold the country’s highest office.

But I am disappointed with the decision. We believe that states like Colorado [and] states across the nation have the authority to disqualify oath-breaking insurrectionists from our ballots. The Supreme Court decided otherwise. Donald Trump is on Colorado's ballot, and votes for him in the Super Tuesday election will be counted.

---

This is all complete bullshit:

Firstly, states have significant freedom to determine their own electoral rules. That too is guaranteed constitutionally. If the Supreme Court were to rule, they could easily rule that states may make their own determinations.

There are rationales available for the justices to do whatever they want. It doesn't depend on actual legal weight. It depends on what they personally want.

 

[Silvanus]

Colorado's democratic Secretary of State said this:

Irrelevant. Republicans brought challenges. Characterising this as a wholly Democratic Party effort is disingenuous.

This is all complete bullshit:

You failed to put forward a coherent argument against it the first time, and this isn't even an argument at all.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Irrelevant. Republicans brought challenges. Characterising this as a wholly Democratic Party effort is disingenuous.



You failed to put forward a coherent argument against it the first time, and this isn't even an argument at all.

I never did. I pointed out democrats are just as anti-democratic. There's no defending what the Colorado Secretary of State said.

I put several arguments on why states can't do that. It was fucking obvious.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

 

[Gergar12]

Common Tim Kaine L.

Battle of Khasham - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Gergar12]

Clown list.

https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Oxford_Economics_Global_Cities_Index_2024.pdf

 

[Bedinsis]

Clown list.

How do you figure?

 

[Gergar12]

How do you figure?

Look at number 66 in the best city list. I live there and let me tell you we aren't 66.

Edit: Also there are a lot of issues with this list. I think the author never went to New York City.