WRL62

[LMP]

Funny you mention that

Step back from the ledge. We can get past this. The lounge is here for you.

 

[Fawlty]

no don't. no oh no.

Maybe just take a break for the rest of your thirty instead?

 

[spin]

Step back from the ledge. We can get past this. The lounge is here for you.

absolutely not

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

That's one way to look at it. There are others, but start there.

Delaney is catching on and I'm not sure I found out about him early enough to be hipster-smug about it.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Why the use of both SLWL and WPEM if they mean exactly the same thing?

Acronyms are like feathers on a peacock around the oppressed, white interwebz.

 

[BarryDillon]

 

[spin]

<Oku02>


you gotta love the coach's reaction

 

[Andy Capp]

Self loathing white leftist. Also known as white progressive ethno masochist. The most nefarious type of racist

Dude, I remember it wasn't all that long ago where you had to delete a bunch of posts and kept referencing the need for meds. Consider they may need adjusting. You're one of the good ones around here otherwise unless this post is for real.

 

[Lord Coke]

Biden is crushing his opponents.

https://www.courthousenews.com/biden-way-ahead-of-democratic-rivals-in-south-carolina/

COLUMBIA, S.C. (CN) – A new poll shows former Vice President Joe Biden is dominating his Democratic rivals in the early primary state of South Carolina, leading his closet competitor by nearly 20 points.

A poll released Wednesday by Change Research shows South Carolinians who say they are likely to vote in the Democratic primaries next year favor Biden, and it’s not close.

Biden is ahead of his closest Democratic contender, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, by 19% in the Palmetto State, according to the poll.

The former vice president had the support of 36% of those surveyed, while Warren had 17% and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont had 16%.

As the first southern state to vote in the 2020 presidential primaries, South Carolina has hosted several campaign events for numerous Democratic presidential hopefuls in the last year.

The 1,209 registered voters in South Carolina who were surveyed include 521 “likely” Democratic primary voters who were asked a variety of questions related to campaign issues and the party’s nomination contest.

The poll shows Biden has a 30-point lead among black voters, with 45% support, followed by Sanders and California Senator Kamala Harris, each with 15%. South Carolina has the largest African-American electorate among early primary states.

The primary race is closer among white voters in the state. Warren is currently leading among that group with 26%, ahead of Biden’s 24% and Sanders’ 16%.

The only age group Biden does not lead is among 18-34 years old. Sanders has the most support among those voters at 30%, compared to 26% for Warren and 18% for Biden.

The recent Democratic debates don’t appear to have hurt Biden’s standing much in South Carolina. The latest poll shows only a single-point drop in voter support for Biden compared to surveys conducted before the debates, in which the frontrunner was a frequent target.

As the top Democratic candidate in most states, Biden faced a series of criticisms from challengers during the debates, including questions from Harris about comments on past work with segregationist senators and his flip-flopping on repealing the Hyde Amendment, a ban on using taxpayer money to pay for most abortions.

Biden chose South Carolina as the location where he addressed in July his controversial past remarks on public school busing and segregationists. He said he decided to deliver the apology in the state because he wanted to do so where the audience was most likely to be offended by his prior remarks.

Palmetto State voters head to the primary polls on Feb. 29, 2020, just three days before Super Tuesday, when 14 other states hold primaries.

Change Research says it surveyed 1,209 registered voters found through targeted online advertisements, to create the recent dataset. The margin of error in the poll is 2.8%.

But while the news was good for Biden in South Carolina, two other polls released Wednesday painted a different picture.

The Economist/YouGov weekly tracking poll puts Biden just one point ahead of Warren nationally, as the senator from Massachusetts continues to outpace Sanders. The survey of 1,500 U.S. citizens was conducted Aug. 10-13.

But before Biden, Warren or Sanders get too comfortable in the top three, the latest Hill-HarrisX poll indicates support from likely Democratic voters is slipping for all three – and rising for lower-tier candidates.

Support for Biden fell three points from an identical poll two weeks ago, while Sanders dipped four points and Warren dropped two. But Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and best-selling author Marianne Williamson saw 1 to 2-point gains.

Meanwhile, the poll of 451 Democratic and Democratic-leaning independent voters found the number of undecided voters ticked back up to 10%.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Biden is crushing his opponents.

https://www.courthousenews.com/biden-way-ahead-of-democratic-rivals-in-south-carolina/

@waiguoren BTFO

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Dude, I remember it wasn't all that long ago where you had to delete a bunch of posts and kept referencing the need for meds. Consider they may need adjusting. You're one of the good ones around here otherwise unless this post is for real.

It was more because I was disrespecting @Fawlty , not because of a meltdown

 

[Sketch]

It was more because I was disrespecting @Fawlty , not because of a meltdown

After his mauling last night, let's give the guy the night off.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Saw it on the news I suppose. No one place.

Any specifics?

 

[HereticBD]

You saw it? Or you heard about it? Who are you referring to?

I saw it.

I mean...wait...no I didn't...


Fuck.

 

[waiguoren]

American felons. Are felons not American?

Yes, American felons are American.

There is no "right to vote". The Constitution forbids the government (state or federal) from taking @Limbo Pete 's life, liberty, or property without due process of law (different story for Native Americans, but that's a separate topic). If a state has a law that says felons are not allowed to vote, and the state grants due process to the accused, there is no problem here. I wouldn't want to live in that state, all else being equal, but it's important that states retain the ability to create their own systems.

Yes, the federal government is limited in its powers by the constitution, more at 11.

What if the Bill of Rights didn't exist? Would you still say the federal government is limited in its powers? If yes, why?

It is inconsistent, which is quite a big deal when what's at stake (criminally) is taking someone's right to liberty or perhaps life.

No, it's consistent. You're assuming the existence of a right that does not exist and has never existed.

I value freedom. You evidently value greater freedom to abrogate the freedoms of others. I think that's bonkers.

Writing in platitudes doesn't make you more convincing or compelling. I value highly the constitutional structure that the framers attempted to create because I think it's superior for almost all purposes to the kind of lawlessness you are promoting. We have a legal mechanism for forbidding states from making felon voting illegal: it's the amendment process. In this case, I support a constitutional amendment to disallow states from denying felons the franchise. The difference between you and me on this issue is that I value highly the process by which the desired outcome is reached. You should value it highly too.

Cool facts, but not relevant.

It's relevant because you were confusing state and federal jurisdiction. We have federal courts to adjudicate cases concerning federal crimes and we have state courts to adjudicate cases concerning state crimes. There is no "incoherence" there, or whatever you wrote.

I would still argue that if the 13th amendment would suddenly vanish, this would not make slavery legal; instead, the SCOTUS would find interpretations of existing law to prohibit it.

Well sure, the 14th Amendment bans slavery too. If we got rid of both the 13th and the 14th Amendments, then states could allow slavery again. What is the point here? Slavery is the most unpopular widespread human arrangement for which there is recent precedent. If those amendments vanished they would be re-created in a matter of weeks.

So is owning nukes explicitly banned by the Constitution?

Of course not.

If not, do you regard laws regulating the ownership of war material and WMD as unconstitutional?

Under a proper originalist interpretation (not e.g., watered-down Scaliaism), yes. Like I mentioned in a previous post, there is no way that the people would stand for such an arrangement, so in the event that SCOTUS opened the floodgates, constitutional amendment(s) banning those war material and WMD would quickly follow.

All rights are invented out of thin air. This is not new. You are bringing a descriptive knife to a prescriptive gun fight.

It wasn't clear that you were making prescriptive arguments. You were using highly technical terminology ("bonkers") in what appeared to me to be a descriptive criticism of the structure of the US government. If you're just saying that felons who meet all other voting requirements should be permitted to vote in all 50 states and that we should amend the Constitution to codify that, then we agree.

We could change, for example, to a right that is uncontroversially in the constitution, for example the right to bear arms, and the actual meat of the argument would remain the same: states shouldn't be able to restrict your federal right to liberty based on their whims. I understand that they are at the moment, but that's stupid.

Why is it stupid? It makes sense both from a descriptive standpoint (the structure of the US government and the vagueness of the text of the 2A permits it) and possibly a prescriptive standpoint (the people of some states might find that such restrictions are desirable).

Sorry, there are no protections for voting in the constitution?

That's not what I wrote. I wrote that there is no categorical "right to vote" in the Constitution. If you think there ought to be, by all means, become a US citizen and rally people behind a constitutional amendment to that end.

I was unaware of this, but my point also was here: if someone were to move to place fines or jail sentences on gay sex, this would certainly be struck down by SCOTUS based on a more progressive interpretation of the Constitution compared to what it would have been in the 19th century.

I think you're way off there, especially if Trump gets a another SCOTUS pick. Lawrence v Texas was wrongly decided. I would have joined Scalia's dissent, as the great Clarence Thomas did, and I also like Thomas's own dissent:

I join Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today “is … uncommonly silly.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to “decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ ” Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I “can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,” ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the “liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,” ante, at 1.
​

Another example: under German law, women had to get their husbands' permission to work in the 1950s. This was upheld by the Bundesverfassungsgericht but later struck down by the same court based on a different interpretation.

There is a potentially fatal issue in any legal system when different judges cannot even agree on the meaning of simple texts. This is the central problem that textualism/originalism seeks to remedy. If "progressives" or "conservatives" or whoever isn't satisfied with the law as written, let them rally the people and get some laws passed or amendments ratified.

Biden is crushing his opponents.

https://www.courthousenews.com/biden-way-ahead-of-democratic-rivals-in-south-carolina/

Sig/AV/name bet he won't be the nominee?

 

[Limbo Pete]

Yes, American felons are American.

There is no "right to vote". The Constitution forbids the government (state or federal) from taking @Limbo Pete 's life, liberty, or property without due process of law (different story for Native Americans, but that's a separate topic). If a state has a law that says felons are not allowed to vote, and the state grants due process to the accused, there is no problem here. I wouldn't want to live in that state, all else being equal, but it's important that states retain the ability to create their own systems.


What if the Bill of Rights didn't exist? Would you still say the federal government is limited in its powers? If yes, why?



No, it's consistent. You're assuming the existence of a right that does not exist and has never existed.


Writing in platitudes doesn't make you more convincing or compelling. I value highly the constitutional structure that the framers attempted to create because I think it's superior for almost all purposes to the kind of lawlessness you are promoting. We have a legal mechanism for forbidding states from making felon voting illegal: it's the amendment process. In this case, I support a constitutional amendment to disallow states from denying felons the franchise. The difference between you and me on this issue is that I value highly the process by which the desired outcome is reached. You should value it highly too.



It's relevant because you were confusing state and federal jurisdiction. We have federal courts to adjudicate cases concerning federal crimes and we have state courts to adjudicate cases concerning state crimes. There is no "incoherence" there, or whatever you wrote.


Well sure, the 14th Amendment bans slavery too. If we got rid of both the 13th and the 14th Amendments, then states could allow slavery again. What is the point here? Slavery is the most unpopular widespread human arrangement for which there is recent precedent. If those amendments vanished they would be re-created in a matter of weeks.


Of course not.


Under a proper originalist interpretation (not e.g., watered-down Scaliaism), yes. Like I mentioned in a previous post, there is no way that the people would stand for such an arrangement, so in the event that SCOTUS opened the floodgates, constitutional amendment(s) banning those war material and WMD would quickly follow.


It wasn't clear that you were making prescriptive arguments. You were using highly technical terminology ("bonkers") in what appeared to me to be a descriptive criticism of the structure of the US government. If you're just saying that felons who meet all other voting requirements should be permitted to vote in all 50 states and that we should amend the Constitution to codify that, then we agree.


Why is it stupid? It makes sense both from a descriptive standpoint (the structure of the US government and the vagueness of the text of the 2A permits it) and possibly a prescriptive standpoint (the people of some states might find that such restrictions are desirable).

That's not what I wrote. I wrote that there is no categorical "right to vote" in the Constitution. If you think there ought to be, by all means, become a US citizen and rally people behind a constitutional amendment to that end.



I think you're way off there, especially if Trump gets a another SCOTUS pick. Lawrence v Texas was wrongly decided. I would have joined Scalia's dissent, as the great Clarence Thomas did, and I also like Thomas's own dissent:

I join Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today “is … uncommonly silly.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to “decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ ” Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I “can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,” ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the “liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,” ante, at 1.
​

There is a potentially fatal issue in any legal system when different judges cannot even agree on the meaning of simple texts. This is the central problem that textualism/originalism seeks to remedy. If "progressives" or "conservatives" or whoever isn't satisfied with the law as written, let them rally the people and get some laws passed or amendments ratified.



Sig/AV/name bet he won't be the nominee?

 

[nac386]

Any specifics?

How many people do you think have worked with Hillary Clinton in some capacity, written about her in some capacity, or has been loosely "connected" to her in some other way? Tens of thousands, I would think. She's been working high profile positions for what, 30 years? So anytime anybody who has ever had some loose connection to her dies, even if it's just somebody who once wrote about her, a conspiracy begins about how she had that person murdered.

 

[Andy Capp]

@N13 Welcome back.
Nice sig. Fear is an enemy you overcome by attrition, not in one, all-encompassing decisive battle. Don't be discouraged by reversals or let them make you question the general principle. Just keep your head up and keep going.

The Soul of man moves ever onward,
bound not by any one star.
But ever moving to the great goal before him
where he is dissolved in the Light of the All.
Know ye that ye shall ever go onward,
moved by the Law of cause and effect
until in the end both become One

I'm glad you know you're still you, yet not.
The Japanese have a saying,
Ichi-go Ichi-e (いちごいちえ)

“Ichi-go ichi-e speaks to the idea that no one encounter can ever be recreated: each moment and each convergence of time, space, light, mood, thought, and circumstance is singular and unrepeatable. As such, every encounter should be met with one’s full, attuned senses. Some encounters plant seeds that take root over time, while others change the course of one’s life in a single moment.”


I would add that it reminds us that we ourselves are ever changing, altered by experience, so even identical encounters are subjectively different. But you're still you and it is a good thing.

 

[AgonyandIrony]

Anything Ska, I'm out.

I'm going to swim to Hawaii and fucking shank you.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

Lots of people are on and off of dubs nonstop. I dont see that by itself being a reason to ban someone. As a political subforum we should expect people to try flying close to the sun.

Meh, to be frank, dubs is a sign of immaturity.