- Feb 7, 2011
- 9,039
- 3,716
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
US 2024 Presidential Election
- Thread starter gorfias
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes, they do. What's your point?
Ah, so you weren't actually concerned about the myocarditis at all, just the purity of the science. Suuuuure.
K. Not sure what this has to do with opposing cruel and unusual punishment. Caring about one doesn't prevent the other.
Don't you know you can only care about one issue at a time? If you are only expressing concern about one issue, that is all you care about. However, if you start talking about all issues you care about at the same time, you are just trying to change the subject.
No they don't...
Yes, you wouldn't have had any of those issues if you actually followed science.
You can oppose that but if you let that be the major issue, it will be the major issue obviously.
Nothing will happen to the major issues if you just jump around caring about the new "current thing". The fact that nothing has happened to said major things is literally proof of that.
New pro-Trump banner appears at DOJ headquarters
The banner features the president's portrait and a variation of his MAGA slogan.
www.newsweek.com
Of course they do. Before being deemed unconstitutional, laws are on the books and enforced.
As an example: the Sullivan Act was law in NY between 1911 and 2022. It required concealed-carry applicants to show "proper cause", above and beyond the general public. Thousands of people were charged during the following century; over three hundred just in the year after it was passed. It was then deemed unconstitutional in 2022.
K. You're deeply concerned for the couple of dozen people experiencing mild myocarditis, but completely unconcerned about the 100+ people imprisoned and tortured without charge.
I am capable of acknowledging that more than one major issue exists.
*blinks*looks at Venezuela*blinks*...wait, what now?
But also we could have stopped paying them to imprison deportees for us, and requested them back as opposed to just shrugging and saying "we're paying a foreign country to put them in torture prison, that's all the way over there so there's nothing we can do!"
Not the most airtight ruling, but the guts of it was essentially that the states run their elections and if a state determines that a candidate is not qualified to run they can choose not to allow that candidate on ballots. Hell, we deny ballot access to third parties for less than "the state elections office has determined they are disqualified under the 14th Amendment."
Ah, the Trumpartment of "Justice", increasingly just a way of ignoring the emoluments cause more directly by suing the government and ordering his subordinates to agree to pay him what he wants to drop it and making sure any document disclosures that get required by law either don't have to be followed or are carefully planned to maximize the desired PR effects.Oh, progressNew pro-Trump banner appears at DOJ headquarters
The banner features the president's portrait and a variation of his MAGA slogan.
I meant the people that passed the unconstitutional laws that caused harm to people.
If you don't let science go through the proper scientific method, you'll have bad results regardless if they are small (myocarditis) or large (schools closed for 18 months). The fact that people were forced to get a vaccine for a disease they already had was extremely anti-science, regardless if no harm came from it or not. That's simply against the basics of how your immune system works. There was never a time people were forced to get vaccinated for something they already had.
Acknowledging something and going out and protesting it and making it the main issue are 2 different things. If the last thing you consistently mention to your boss is a raise, you'll never get that raise.
Of course, you can do it (invade countries), that's a huge occurrence in human history. In recent times that is not done unless under extreme circumstances. There's no reason to send troops to reclaim a couple hundred people that would be removed from your country anyway. Biden did put a $25 million warrant out for his arrest.
1) States cannot interpret federal law
2) Trump wasn't tried or convicted of being an insurrectionist so you can't just say he was. Just like if murderers weren't allowed to run for office, you can't just say someone is a murderer to get them off the ballot. The amount of corruption possible is through the roof if that was allowed.
3) If states were able to do that because they run their elections, then you would have all blue states removing republican candidates and red states removing democratic candidates. It would be a clusterfuck.
4) SCOTUS unanimously ruled 9-0 that it was unconstitutional. It's something I knew would happen after 5 seconds of hearing the news that Trump was removed from the ballot.
Trump Says Obama ‘Gave Classified Information’ in Alien Comments - Bl…
archived 19 Feb 2026 19:49:03 UTC
It doesn't even have a weird fucking design, its juts his ugly mug.Oh, progressNew pro-Trump banner appears at DOJ headquarters
The banner features the president's portrait and a variation of his MAGA slogan.
What relevance does that have to what we're talking about?
And if you let the government flout the law, you'll get bad results regardless of if they are small or large.
I mean, i'd consider over a hundred people imprisoned without trial or charge and tortured to be pretty big. But you never did care about wellbeing other than your own.
Lol ok. I live in the UK, so there's not much point in protesting American domestic policy in the streets of London. Though i do protest in the UK-- i've been detained and kettled for it.
I assume you attend plenty of protests for healthcare and education reform.
Indeed, exactly as Phoenixmgs argued back when Bill Cosby was released.
Oh wait, has he dropped that principle here? Gosh, it's almost like he never really believed in it at all, it was just a convenient thing to say at the time when it suited him to.
You: OK. And then when a judge rules that something is in contravention of the law, that first instance that brought it to court is somehow like a 'freebie' that doesn't count as being illegal?
Me: Is anyone punished for laws that end up being ruled unconstitutional because they were in effect for a period of time?
You: Yes, they do. What's your point?
Me: No they don't...
I was referring to those that pass unconstitutional laws, nothing happens to them. Much like people/agencies that are found to have misinterpreted a law prior a later ruling, nothing happens to them either.
---
That's not flouting the law as I've just said above because that has never been considered flouting the law.
---
You do seem to be pretty obsessed with American policy for some reason when British policies have been far worse. I actually vote for people that might actually change said policies, that's far better than going out and protesting.
I know what you were referring to. I'm asking what the relevance of it is.
Honest misinterpretation is not generally considered 'flouting the law'.
This was not a case of honest misinterpretation. This was wilful disregard of a court order. Besides which, there is no honest reading of the US Constitution that allows the punishment of people without charge, trial, or extreme extenuating circumstance.
I'm concerned about the policy direction of the most powerful countries on earth, yes, because I'm not absurdly short-sighted. That includes the US (alongside other abusive, authoritarian tosspots like the Chinese government).
You vote for nonentities and pat yourself on the back for nonpartisanship, while reflexively defending whatever the Republicans do.
Just look at how wonderful the economy is doing with such a fantastic business minded leader!
To be fair, that is believed to be mostly the result of the shutdown, and it's expected to rebound with good growth in Q1 2026.
The more serious question is where the growth is. And apparently, outside the tech industry, the USA is about as stagnant as Europe. The tech industry's growth is currently almost entirely dependent on AI. If AI is a bubble and it pops...
From my reading around, there's a lot of severe worry about AI. It's not going to be profitable for years, whilst it sucks in truly terrifying quantities of investment. Some analysts say that the amount of venture capital to keep AI going at the rate it wants simply does not exist. But what seems to currently be going on some chicanery to open up a substantial chunk of the finance industry to be used as venture capital that conventionally isn't, because those savings are supposed to be on much lower risk investment. Obviously, this vastly increases risk if AI doesn't pay off, because it will infect a vastly greater proportion of the financial markets: so if bubble, 2008 all over again.
Is not misinterpreting a law and making a law that is unconstitutional extremely similar? Making an unconstitutional law is you misinterpreting the constitution.
Court order happened later. Not on American soil and not to American citizens, you act like such things haven't been done before and haven't been done by probably every single administration.
You care about who the US lets in the country and who it deports? US immigration policy has been super stable for decades and only the democrats were the ones to alter that policy last administration. The current parties would be nonentities if people stopped voting for them. I keep telling you guys how much power you all actually do have but you never exercise it and only complain.
Suck it Trump. That is what you get.