Let's Talk About Media

thethe said:
[Tw]1247569146675474433[/tw]

All roads lead to Beijing.
Click to expand...

Actually people do have a problem with what Hunter Biden was doing. The thing is it wasnt illegal. I would love for it to be illegal. I would 1000% support a law that makes it illegal for the kids of an elected official to profit off their name. Sign me up. The problem is Congress would have to agree to it and almost all of them have family benefiting from them being in office. No matter what they say in public, and this goes for Democrats and Republicans, this is corruption they love.
 
Last edited:
sturg33 said:
I'm curious what the SCOTUS did wrong here. Seems like the Wisconsin GOP is to blame here. What does Striker think?
Click to expand...

The Wisconsin GOP is obvious a bad actor, no question. Though, the plaintiff is actually the Republican National Committee.

I think the majority opinion is an example of how formalism is blind to reality in dumb ways. They take a good general principle ("This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.") (emphasis added) and apply it in a way divorced from the actual facts on the ground:

The plaintiffs put forward no probative evidence in the District Court that these voters here would be in a substantially different position from late-requesting voters in other Wisconsin elections with respect to the timing of their receipt of absentee ballots.
Click to expand...

This is gallingly obtuse. The ways in which this election is different than "other Wisconsin elections" is so obvious as to not even need addressing. But as long as they assert this, then they can formalistically apply the above general principle to this "ordinary" situation.

Another example: They consider the "critical point" to be how plaintiffs requested the one week delay:

First, the dissent entirely disregards the critical point that the plaintiffs themselves did not ask for this additional relief in their preliminary injunction motions. [...]

Our point is not that the argument is necessarily forfeited, but is that the plaintiffs themselves did not see the need to ask for such relief.
Click to expand...

The dissent points out that they did in fact ask for specifically this relief at the preliminary hearing on this issue, based on the spiking absentee ballot requests (the majority doesn't even address this in order to dismiss it). But the fact that they didn't put that request in writing in the motion that led to that hearing is extremely important... for some reason.

EDIT: I should be clear. I don't think the majority opinion is crazy. I get the logic of it, once you accept their poor "factual" posture; but the problem it is formal navel-gazing, of the type that conservatives would call "ivory tower" elitism disconnected from "real people," if the shoe were on the other foot.
 
Last edited:
The virus started there. It only makes sense they would recover before we do but obviously take anything China reports with a grain of salt.
 
[tw]1247819033912782848[/tw]

Who is calling the shots at the Times?

Should we just call them for what they are? Satellite of the CCP?
 
[tw]1247881558796783616[/tw]

Why is our country so slow to realize what CHina is?

This is strange to me.
 
Yes China is to blame for this starting. Also to blame are the people who said China had this contained and that they trust Xi. We should have been preparing long before it got out from China.
 
[tw]1248234209031925761[/tw]

Not sure how you guys aren't noticing.

Is your hatred for Trump and all things populist that strong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top