Why do people seem to think I’m saying that Meta was blocking conservatives?

Because your literal words were “the same article but about how meta was blocking conservatives.” Please tell the class how saying “meta was blocking conservatives” does NOT mean “Meta was blocking conservatives.”

My first question coming into this thread was, “is this a Trump judge?” I’m glad OP answered that in the post!

It isn’t tactics or trolling, moron. It’s just reporting the results of a poll that was taken. It sucks that people feel this way, but reporting facts isn’t a tactical move to make Biden look bad. Every debate that has ever been held has had polling afterward to report how the debate made people feel. This is no different.

Nobody in the article or in this thread: “Genocide.”

You: “This accurate reporting of real world polling doesn’t reflect my world view, so it must be trolling and be about genocide!!”

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/bc/bc2ffd9292ee58f2fb44eda95843e5e277bb0c84ef4dd3739ac8ad934c9e2e0a.jpg

This made me chuckle. Thanks.

Related: my buddy was wearing a romphim the other day at a party. It’s like a romper but for men.

Did you seriously say “are you sure?” and then link to the exact words the person said?

That’s a different type of test for a different type of rocket.

This opens the door for ranked choice voting, which I’m in favor of, but in an extremely red state also opens the door for silencing minority parties.

Ranked choice is awesome, in my opinion. My concern is with open primaries, and specifically this single primary idea. Primaries are supposed to be where private organizations can choose who they think is the strongest candidate in a general election. Letting people outside the organization to vote allows, for instance, a Republican to vote in the Democrat primary for the weakest candidate. The idea with this initiative is that so few people are actually members of a party, regardless of how they vote, that they don’t get a say in who they are voting for. My concern, which might be invalid, is that in a state that votes 80% Republican a single primary that picks the top 4 candidates will just pick 4 Republicans for the general election. In the current system, the Green Party has a candidate in the general, as well as the Democratic Party and the Republican Party and whoever else. If I’m understanding what I read correctly, this proposed system has all candidates lumped in one primary with the top 4 going to general election where ranked choice comes into play.

Maybe there is some check in place to prevent it, but what is to stop the 80% of the state who are against Democrats from voting a top 4 of all Republicans? The smaller parties would have to be 100% unified to even stand a chance to make it to the general.

"it’s government’s role to provide a good public education,” he said.

That’s fucking rich from a Trump supporting Republican.

EDIT: Kept reading. "we need to be looking at how we’re preparing all students to be successful, not just my student.” Jesus, they are so close to getting it!

The ruling says that INTENT cannot be questioned. The President can say whatever he/she wants after the assassination, and it cannot be questioned by courts. The Pres can say that the killing stopped an imminent terror attack. They can say the person was in the middle of committing a crime and had a (totally not planted) gun on them.

I get what you are saying, that extrajudicial execution is not a faculty given to the executive branch. In the US, the judicial system is supposed to have the power over adjudicating crimes. And US citizens have the right to trial by their peers. But the government has shown repeatedly in the past that when it comes to terror that they are more than happy to waive rights. See: Guantanamo, drone kills of US citizens, cops killing people who are only suspected of being a threat, etc.

It was hung illegally on government property. Regardless what it said, this was not allowed. They are being prosecuted instead of simply fined because it was racially motivated like a hate crime.

I’m my grandmother had wheels she’d be a bike.

No, that’s not what they are saying, dipshit.

Nah, it’ll be around $6/year you were a subscriber while the lawyers will get $34/year.

Copy and paste from another post I made:

This ruling sounds good on its face, but it’s mixed at best and somewhat bad in the broad view.

1. It doesn’t define what is or isn’t an official duty or act. It gives some examples and then says it’s up to the lower courts to decide what is or isn’t on a case by case basis. It specifically said some of the current allegations are official acts that can’t be prosecuted and said some of the others are probably not official acts but the lower courts will have to rule on them. I’m sure that will be a speedy process that gets done before the election!

2. It also says it is the government’s burden to prove an act isn’t official, which will slow everything down and bring the cases back to SCOTUS again on a case by case basis. This also opens the possibility of political assassinations as being argued as official acts.

3. It mentions Presidents having limited immunity from having to make documents available. It does say it isn’t absolute, but it definitely leaves the door open to block current court cases from using many documents as evidence and also leaves the door open to claim immunity for the classified docs case. Evidence fights at the current criminal cases are about to be much harder for the prosecution to win. Now, it does say that former Presidents no longer have this immunity but isn’t clear whether that is for all docs or only docs for after they are former Presidents.

4. Maybe the worst is that it rules INTENT cannot be questioned. That is a core concept of criminal cases: intent matters! They are holding that it would bog down a President to be constantly asked about his/her intent when doing official acts, so therefor courts cannot question it. This REALLY opens the possibility of political assassinations, since intent behind the act cannot be questioned (e.g. it presupposes the person who was assassinated was committing treason or planning a terrorist attack and therefor the Presidential act was official). It does not say that former Presidents no longer have the Intent immunity, so this might be rough to clear in courts.

5. It specifically ruled that it is 100% OK to fire a person if they don’t do the illegal thing the President asks them to do, as long as that person’s job is something the President can hire/fire. It also ruled that if the illegal thing the President asks them to do falls within their job duties, then the President is immune from prosecution for asking for that illegal thing.

What you and most other anti-DEI people fail to realize is there inherent value in having people on the team from different backgrounds with different views and ways of finding solutions. The best person for the job is not necessarily the person who has the most training or experience in an area. Outside the box thinking often leads to better outcomes, so there is value in having people who think about/see the world in different ways.

This ruling sounds good on its face, but it’s mixed at best and somewhat bad in the broad view.

1. It doesn’t define what is or isn’t an official duty or act. It gives some examples and then says it’s up to the lower courts to decide what is or isn’t on a case by case basis. It specifically said some of the current allegations are official acts that can’t be prosecuted and said some of the others are probably not official acts but the lower courts will have to rule on them. I’m sure that will be a speedy process that gets done before the election!

2. It also says it is the government’s burden to prove an act isn’t official, which will slow everything down and bring the cases back to SCOTUS again on a case by case basis. This also opens the possibility of political assassinations as being argued as official acts.

3. It mentions Presidents having limited immunity from having to make documents available. It does say it isn’t absolute, but it definitely leaves the door open to block current court cases from using many documents as evidence and also leaves the door open to claim immunity for the classified docs case. Evidence fights at the current criminal cases are about to be much harder for the prosecution to win. Now, it does say that former Presidents no longer have this immunity but isn’t clear whether that is for all docs or only docs for after they are former Presidents.

4. Maybe the worst is that it rules INTENT cannot be questioned. That is a core concept of criminal cases: intent matters! They are holding that it would bog down a President to be constantly asked about his/her intent when doing official acts, so therefor courts cannot question it. This REALLY opens the possibility of political assassinations, since intent behind the act cannot be questioned (e.g. it presupposes the person who was assassinated was committing treason or planning a terrorist attack and therefor the Presidential act was official). It does not say that former Presidents no longer have the Intent immunity, so this might be rough to clear in courts.

5. It specifically ruled that it is 100% OK to fire a person if they don’t do the illegal thing the President asks them to do, as long as that person’s job is something the President can hire/fire. It also ruled that if the illegal thing the President asks them to do falls within their job duties, then the President is immune from prosecution for asking for that illegal thing.

One justice put that out there during oral arguments, but I’ve read the majority ruling and it doesn’t mention assassinations. The dissenting opinion does mention the question of what acts fall within official duties, including political assassinations.

Barely noticed it. The only time most people would use that are on long road trips, which I only take about twice a year (most of my road trips are between 100-200 miles one way, which can be done with filling up at the destination). So if I used L3, it was for 30 minutes while grabbing lunch on the road and getting half the charge “filled.” 99% of my charging was L2 at home or at destinations.