Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Um perhaps you should. Specifically William Shirer’s “Nightmare Years.”
 

Y’all win! Y’all have convinced me to valiantly run away like Sir Robin.

image.png.fde4269218fd1a5c12540dde55ff802e.png

8 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Sauer and RFK, Jr. and their fucked-up voices need to be thrown off a cliff.

Just thinking this myself.  

 

Edited by Bullneck
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

I think bozo's point is that while Twatter may suck and us bystanders may want to get off, candidates, the party, and those that consider themselves thought leaders or persuaders need to stay on.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
10 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I would invest in a company that intentionally spammed conspiracies to target and take down Republicans. Some of those QAnon assholes would bite

“Make the son of a bitch deny it”

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

A bit of an explainer on injunction scope.  

In the usual case, an injunction applies only to the parties to the case:  the enjoined party cannot do unto the opposing party.  Most court cases only have application as between the two parties, except as one form or another of precedential value (law of the case, claim or issue preclusion, persuasive precedent, or controlling precedent) on other cases.

In a case where the government is a party, however, the injunction usually involve a determination that the government's action is invalid, and then, it's not so much the injunction, but the holding of invalidity that becomes the issue.  How far does that extend? 

In the usual case, a district court holding has limited precedential value:  it really only controls the parties before the court, and maybe (persuasive) other courts within the district.  Once it is affirmed by the court of appeals, it becomes a binding precedent in that circuit, and whatever states comprise it.  And becomes not controlling precedent, but "advisory" or persuasive to courts in other circuits  If ruled upon and affirmed by SCOTUS, it's nationally controlling precedent.

Which brings us back to the injunction.  How far should the government be permitted to continue to enforce a law or policy that has been held invalid by only one court.  Granted, that ruling in and of itself may cast the law or policy into serious doubt, but then there's Reed O'Connor.

Without extending the holding beyond the parties, you get a different ruling from every district court considering, some enjoining some not, and on differing grounds.  

Once it makes it to courts of appeal, you get something like 11 variants, one for each circuit.

You avoid that "chaos" by permitting either circuit-wide effect (11 variations) or national effect (no variations).

Apart from the current crisis issues, it's an interesting question.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Goddamn, y’all are dead set on missing the point. 

So you're saying on the outside we can't understand, and on the inside you can't explain?

  • Like 1
Posted
4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think bozo's point is that while Twatter may suck and us bystanders may want to get off, candidates, the party, and those that consider themselves thought leaders or persuaders need to stay on.

The Office Thank You GIF
 

would also add that it serves the rest of us as a window into that how the world interacts with normies, since that’s the platform all the normies use, like it or not. 

Posted
18 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

The Office Thank You GIF
 

would also add that it serves the rest of us as a window into that how the world interacts with normies, since that’s the platform all the normies use, like it or not. 

Pssstttt.....there are no "normies."  Not anymore.

Just psychopaths/sociopaths, those who are under their spell, and sane people who are frozen and feel helpless because we don't know how to speak even base-level "absolute nutbar batshittery."

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Pssstttt.....there are no "normies."  Not anymore.

It’s like “They Live.” Most people are asleep, blinded by normality and sedated by comfort.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted
5 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

except there's no Rowdy Roddy Piper coming to save us

Reason number eleventy billion to hate this timeline: no Rowdy Roddy Piper.

Fucking Merle Haggard and Don Williams are dead.

Anne Murray retired years ago.

I mean, fuck this moment in time.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

The Office Thank You GIF
 

would also add that it serves the rest of us as a window into that how the world interacts with normies, since that’s the platform all the normies use, like it or not. 

Eh, I understand the point but it strikes me as arguing that a voluntary social platform is too big to fail for the good of the country and society has to have that specific company. It’s like arguing we had to stay on MySpace instead of letting other platforms like twitter arise and do their thing. Saying politicians and thought leaders need a twitter voice instead of any other social media voice strikes me against the natural order. 

abandon twitter, join better non-Nazi loving sights, The world keeps turning. 

Posted
On 5/15/2025 at 1:53 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

I knew George Washington, I worked with George Washington and you’re no George Washington

Armybrat, probably.

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, achooloco said:

understand the point but it strikes me as arguing that a voluntary social platform is too big to fail for the good of the country and society has to have that specific company. It’s like arguing we had to stay on MySpace instead of letting other platforms like twitter arise and do their thing.

My guy you are skipping ahead to the park where Twitter has already shrunk. We’re still at the point where Twitter is dominant, and it would be marketing malpractice for democrats to ignore it in favor of encouraging the exodus to <insert whatever lefty-approved space> before only hardcore maga is left behind.  
 

Democrats (in their capacity as political actors) getting off Twitter in 2025 would be like a Toyota getting off MySpace in 2008. It’s just not time yet. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

My guy you are skipping ahead to the park where Twitter has already shrunk. We’re still at the point where Twitter is dominant, and it would be marketing malpractice for democrats to ignore it in favor of encouraging the exodus to <insert whatever lefty-approved space> before only hardcore maga is left behind.  
 

Democrats (in their capacity as political actors) getting off Twitter in 2025 would be like a Toyota getting off MySpace in 2008. It’s just not time yet. 

agreed. I hope one day it's transferred back to capable hands, but I suspect that won't happen. musk purchased that platform to help control the narrative and sure as shit succeeded at that. the only way I see him giving it up is if he decides to shrink away from public life, which I could actually see him doing. he's wildly unpopular right now, from all sides

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I saw a headline yesterday that oral arguments suggested they'd let the president end birthright citizenship. I'm struggling to see it, the usual two will of course allow it, but I gotta think at least two of Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett would read the fucking document and say no.

Posted
4 minutes ago, &#x27;stache said:

I saw a headline yesterday that oral arguments suggested they'd let the president end birthright citizenship. I'm struggling to see it, the usual two will of course allow it, but I gotta think at least two of Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett would read the fucking document and say no.

Barrett may as well be a liberal justice at this point. Kavanaugh will do whatever Roberts says. Gorsuch is a bit of a wildcard. 

Posted
8 minutes ago, &#x27;stache said:

I saw a headline yesterday that oral arguments suggested they'd let the president end birthright citizenship. I'm struggling to see it, the usual two will of course allow it, but I gotta think at least two of Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett would read the fucking document and say no.

I didn't read a bunch about the arguments, but I heard Nina Totenberg's report on NPR yesterday, and from what she said and the excerpts from the justices they played, it felt like Barrett and Kavanaugh seemed really skeptical at Trump's position.  Even that fuckwad Alito had a comment on the nationwide injunction issue that seemed like he had trouble with the government's argument.

I say that, and in a couple months I'm going to read a 6-3 opinion that will allow the Trump administration to immediately deport every U.S. born citizen who's parents were not born in America.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
33 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

agreed. I hope one day it's transferred back to capable hands, but I suspect that won't happen. musk purchased that platform to help control the narrative and sure as shit succeeded at that. the only way I see him giving it up is if he decides to shrink away from public life, which I could actually see him doing. he's wildly unpopular right now, from all sides

It’s in decline and it will die eventually. When the Next Big Thing appears, it will fall pretty fast, we just aren’t there yet. 

Posted
Just now, South Austin said:

I didn't read a bunch about the arguments, but I heard Nina Totenberg's report on NPR yesterday, and from what she said and the excerpts from the justices they played, it felt like Barrett and Kavanaugh seemed really skeptical at Trump's position.  Even that fuckwad Alito had a comment on the nationwide injunction issue that seemed like he had trouble with the government's argument.

I say that, and in a couple months I'm going to read a 6-3 opinion that will allow the Trump administration to immediately deport every U.S. born citizen who's parents were not born in America.

wouldn't that be all of trump's children except Tiff?

Posted
42 minutes ago, South Austin said:

I didn't read a bunch about the arguments, but I heard Nina Totenberg's report on NPR yesterday, and from what she said and the excerpts from the justices they played, it felt like Barrett and Kavanaugh seemed really skeptical at Trump's position.  Even that fuckwad Alito had a comment on the nationwide injunction issue that seemed like he had trouble with the government's argument.

I say that, and in a couple months I'm going to read a 6-3 opinion that will allow the Trump administration to immediately deport every U.S. born citizen who's parents were not born in America.

Yeah, everything I read said they're focused pretty much entirely on the nationwide injunction issue and don't consider the citizenship issue squarely before them.

I am getting a definite sense that the quality of advocacy of the Trump administration has taken a dive.  This Sauer cat seems like an asshole it was not well received.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
36 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, everything I read said they're focused pretty much entirely on the nationwide injunction issue and don't consider the citizenship issue squarely before them.

I am getting a definite sense that the quality of advocacy of the Trump administration has taken a dive.  This Sauer cat seems like an asshole it was not well received.

The orders have come down across government: the goal is to ape the worst rhetoric of the administration, not to actually accomplish the administration’s purported goal. There is no space to try and get your way to Trump’s destination by a different path than the one Trump has laid out. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

My guy you are skipping ahead to the park where Twitter has already shrunk. We’re still at the point where Twitter is dominant, and it would be marketing malpractice for democrats to ignore it in favor of encouraging the exodus to <insert whatever lefty-approved space> before only hardcore maga is left behind.  
 

Democrats (in their capacity as political actors) getting off Twitter in 2025 would be like a Toyota getting off MySpace in 2008. It’s just not time yet. 

Seems then we are not disagreeing over how long until they’re irrelevant. In which i case I’d reiterate why hold on to a dying vine especially when it’s only a media arm of wannabe tyrannical governmental.

Abandon it to show defiance, we are no longer in an era of posturing. When one side constantly attacks and the other is accused of treason for mere jokes, stop holding any water for any gov soft power. Meaningful resistance won’t be found on co-opted media

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, achooloco said:

Seems then we are not disagreeing over how long until they’re irrelevant. In which i case I’d reiterate why hold on to a dying vine especially when it’s only a media arm of wannabe tyrannical governmental

Are you saying Twitter isn’t relevant? Oh my god. Twitter isn’t just still relevant, it’s still dominant. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Are you saying Twitter isn’t relevant? Oh my god. Twitter isn’t just still relevant, it’s still dominant. 

 

3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

My guy you are skipping ahead to the park where Twitter has already shrunk.

Dominant is irrelevant to the issue so I’m drunk but to quote: There’s that old joke, I’ve referred to it before, where the guy at the bar asks the girl if she’d fuck him for a million dollars—and she thinks about it and finally replies, “Well, I guess for a million dollars, yeah…” At which point he quickly offers her a dollar for the same service. “Fuck you!” she says, declining angrily. “You think I’d fuck you for a dollar? What do you think I am?” To which the guy says, “Well … we’ve already established you’re a whore. Now we’re just haggling over the price

so you’ve admitted the decline is occurring, I see no reason to hold water for a government subsidy welfare queen immigrant that worked illegally and is actively shitting on my country. You do you, I stand by the fact it isn’t too big to fail so no reason to stay, let it die, it’s only “dominant” because you (the royal you) wants to be stubborn. Just don’t. 

Posted

Just a reminder about who let Venezuelans into the country:

President Donald Trump on Tuesday announced he will offer Venezuelan exiles protection from deportation, a move he has considered for years but refused to do until his last full day in office. 

Trump is using the little-known Deferred Enforced Departure program, or DED, to offer temporary legal status to Venezuelans fleeing the humanitarian crisis brought on by Nicolás Maduro’s regime. DED, similar to Temporary Protected Status or TPS, protects recipients from deportation and allows them to get work permits. However, it is granted directly by the president instead of the Department of Homeland Security.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 hours ago, chainsaw said:

wait imma unblocked twitter?

Temporarily while I figure out how to self host all embeds. It was causing issues related to recruiting threads. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Are you saying Twitter isn’t relevant? Oh my god. Twitter isn’t just still relevant, it’s still dominant. 

Bad/wrong opinions thread ——>

Posted

Keeping up with the Twatter jack, one reason I disliked it even before Elmo ruint it, the short-form format leads to a lot of inaccuracy, particularly for nuanced material.  It always required fact-checking.

Therefore, it's fucking perfect for MAGA.  And probably anathema for the rest of us, outside of sports takes.

But Dems would probably be well advised to distill things to 140 characters or whatever it is.

 

Posted
53 minutes ago, miguelito said:

He still thinks asylum seekers are from insane asylums. Has no one explained it to him in small enough words?

There is no explaining.  The truth is what he perceives it to be in the moment.  That view can certainly be colored by whatever information or misinformation randomly drifts by his brain, but he certainly isn't the type to have some basic error explained in plain English and then respond "oh shit, my bad" like the average adult would.

Posted

In listening to some clips from the scotus hearing, I can’t decide if the solicitor general just knows he has an unwinnable case and is just trying to demonstrate some effort to show Trump he’s trying, or he’s just a moron.

i think we all agree that a single district judge shouldn’t be able to fully hamstring a president indefinitely, hence we have the appeals and Supreme Courts. Does it mean that court or judge can slow a president? Yep. It’s called being part of a system where one person doesn’t have unlimited power.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
10 hours ago, South Austin said:

I say that, and in a couple months I'm going to read a 6-3 opinion that will allow the Trump administration to immediately deport every U.S. born citizen who's parents were not born in America.

So long, Melania. 

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, South Austin said:

I say that, and in a couple months I'm going to read a 6-3 opinion that will allow the Trump administration to immediately deport every U.S. born citizen who's parents were not born in America.

So long, Melania.

Oh shit, I forgot.

Well that was a weird attempt at an edit. 

Edited by WhatTheBuck


×
×
  • Create New...