Lurker > Sackgurl

UnfairRepresent posted...

"There's no way to prevent it though" ~ only country where this happens regularly

maybe we should give everybody whatever it is we give to supreme court justice clarence thomas or supreme court justice brett cavanaugh

they don't seem to be deserving of any protection that shouldn't also be given to any other person in america

if that's too expensive to give to everyone maybe it's too expensive for them too

it makes me sick how many states have banned abortion outright

Guide posted...

For like 99%. There are potentially those few obscure planets, away from everything else, that live relatively peaceful lives. You know, except for when the Angry Sky Giants come down and take their healthy sons.

peaceful lives do not make for good space marine recruits. death worlds or bust.

no guide subnautica, finding reapers organically

legendary_zell posted...

Check out what most of the gender your competing with's profiles and copy the good stuff and avoid the bad stuff to stand out.

legendary_zell posted...

Send tailored messages related to something in their profile, shared interests, something specific to them

these in particular are really excellent quick reference points for dudes on dating sites

there's also the direct physical improvements guys can make. i'll always remember the one smart thing jersey shore ever said:

gym, tan, laundry.

physical attractiveness in men is tied most clearly to fitness, grooming, and attire.

pinky0926 posted...

men lying about their intentions
men being absolute s***bags
men having commitment issues
men saying the grossest s*** right out of the gate

being fair, the men who do this are the men who are regularly getting their foot in the door (thus feeling they can get away with it).

most men try, but they try in useless ways that accomplish nothing

polling data suggests there's a lot of very decent men willing to commit who aren't gross, but have no idea how to be attractive and are making the questionable decision to aim up (or be afraid to act at all for fear of rejection)

these guys are sort of filtering themselves out of the equation

DepreceV2 posted...

this just makes the problem worse right

no, inflation is caused by monetary policy not fiscal policy

in this case we have supply chain issues driving it as well

also if a man assaults a pregnant woman and she suffers a miscarriage he should be charged with second degree murder

Accolon posted...

They need to be removed immediately.

they have rigged the state legislature elections even worse than the federal legislature elections

yes, they can design their own electoral map, not just the one for federal reps

Nerevar791 posted...

Also:

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1541429605520875522

best summary possible of the case

SrRd_RacinG posted...

I'm talking from 40 to 60+, which I imagine most of us are not old enough to have experienced yet.

pew research says you don't know what you're talking about

SrRd_RacinG posted...

What makes you think this won't happen to you, too?

because data suggests this is a stupid axiom that oversimplifies to the point of being fundamentally wrong

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/26/the-political-typology-beyond-red-vs-blue/

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/

Questionmarktarius posted...

Afghanistan then, twice. You don't need a decisive victory, you just have to annoy the military until they go home.

but this is home

Questionmarktarius posted...

meanwhile, in Vietnam...

in vietnam the vietcong failed to achieve every single strategic objective they ever sought to accomplish, and three million vietnamese (including two million civilians and one million vietcong/NVA troops) died

i don't think that analogue really works here

NeoShadowhen posted...

You believe that people who are in power would not be more hesitant to infringe on the rights of an armed population as opposed to a population who has no means to defend themselves?

current evidence suggests that no, republicans are not hesitant to infringe on the rights of expression (1st), voting (24th), privacy (9th), equal protection (14th) despite the population being armed

because although armed, a large fraction of the population (NOT a majority) is also thoroughly indoctrinated and our representation system has enabled that minority to strip rights from the majority

Questionmarktarius posted...

A school can't compel you to pray, but can't forbid you from praying either.

the question was sort of fundamentally whether your coach publicly praying in front of you and the rest of the team you're on, with an "open invitation" for you to join in, is compulsion

as they consistently do of late, SCOTUS argues he is not explicitly saying he will kick you off the team if you don't join in so he's not compelling you, much like they said that campaign donations that aren't explicitly cartoon money bags with dollar signs on them being exchanged for a signed contract to support specific policy positions are not explicitly bribery

agreed- if the goal is avoiding suffering of the fetus, the less developed the fetus is the less suffering is caused when it is aborted (if the goal is minimizing suffering in general, letting women decide whether they want to abort definitely will produce drastically less total suffering)

Solid Sonic posted...

Again, fine, but don't get pissed when someone resorts to it and "that wasn't warranted."

they already do that all the fucking time

50% S&P500 index (VOO)
15% MSCI Ex-US stock index (VXUS)
20% mid-cap 500 index (VO)
10% russell 2000 small cap index (VTWO)
5% bond index, scaling upward with rest of the portfolio up to around 50% as you approach retirement (BND)

ZMythos posted...

Students on low tracks are substantially more likely to stay on those low tracks and never get high quality math education.

i think the key point to make here is that the quality of education stems from the instruction and associated funding, and not the level of difficulty/advancement of the class

when you have a tracking system, you put your best teachers in charge of AP calculus and your worst in charge of senior precalc

resulting in the senior precalc class being quite awful

it's important to understand that de-tracking necessarily puts all/the vast majority of students on the lowest track, and the intent then is to make the lowest track actually taught well

Solid Sonic posted...

Why are we advocating street justice, though?

because we don't have access to any other kind

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

The system is beyond repair, and I'm beyond trusting democracy for fixes. There's only one solution left, but saying it outloud gets you harshly moderated, so I just have to accept things for what they are and watch as it keeps getting worse in this third-world s***hole country trying to pretend it's a first-world wet fart.

yes, if Hodgkinson had better aim america would be a better place

but he didn't so what you have is the option to vote

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

The Republicans would have just cheated them in some other way, and sure as s***, the Democrats would have just sat back and let them do it. Just like this time.

you're starting to make nonsense excuses because you decided on your conclusion before you evaluated the evidence

just say "i'm upset that nazis are taking over my country, but i'm also lazy"

it's not much harder than just sucking it up and voting. you can vote and still think "i fucking hate this system", you know.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

To be fair, those judges were appointed by Presidents that lost the popular vote.

If that guy is a blue voter in a red state, then his vote literally means nothing in this instance.

can't argue there.

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

As evident by what happened to abortion rights recently, my allying with Democrats would have accomplished jack shit. And with only two parties, there's no other way to vote against Republicans.

if it resulted in republicans failing to appoint enough supreme court justices, it would have accomplished something.

remember- clarence thomas and alito are very old and fat. they could drop dead tomorrow. the second there are five liberal justices in SCOTUS every single ruling by this court will be challenged by grassroots groups.

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

And with only two parties, there's no other way to vote against Republicans.

yes i'm glad you are aware of that.

the only good nazi is a dead nazi

Inferno Dive Dragoon posted...

This is why I just indefinitely abstain, there is literally no party that represents my wants or needs, and there never will be at this point.

if there's a party that represents the opposite of your views you should be voting against them

emblem boy posted...

What really needs to happen is we kiss ass to them and give them whatever they want, not to bully them. Again, they have all the leverage here.

but what they want is for democrats to lose in november

(also for democrats to humiliate themselves right now by singing god bless america in the face of protests about the stripping of rights)

like i wouldnt say it's imposible that sinema specifically asked for house dems to sing right now

and they're doing it because they're still hoping she won't pull the football out from under them this time when they try to pass build back better again

nuanced answer: she was a college swimmer, and has graduated

nazis

Megaman50100 posted...

What should I do if my car gets stolen and my lawyer is indisposed?

file a claim with your insurance

the protections had already been expanded by dickerson. this shrunk them back.

what do you expect congressional democrats to do now that the only way to protect abortion rights nationwide is to control a massive congressional majority such that you can make a federal law mandating the legality of abortion? canvas for republicans?

also you people should stop weighing in like you're legal scholars because not only are you not, you didn't even bother to read the document providing exactly what the ruling says which I went to the trouble to find and link for you

you've made up in your own minds this wrong idea that this is a narrow ruling that doesn't do anything. the majority opinion deliberately and explicitly chose to use language making very clear that it is not a narrow ruling.

you seem to think this is a response to one case establishing one system that was never updated, as though that was something we have ever done in the US, and not an attempt to overthrow decades of legal precedent that have built on and significantly expanded the original ruling, and turn back to the barest form from the original case

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


it absolutely, 100% is a departure from how miranda has operated since Dickerson v United States, which enshrined Miranda as a constitutional requirement. This ruling overturned that explicitly by stating:

If a Miranda violation were tantamount to a violation of the Fifth Amendment, our answer would of course be different.

From the dissent:

The Courts decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), affords well-known protections to suspects who are interrogated by police while in custody. Those protections derive from the Constitution: Dickerson v. United States tells us in no uncertain terms that Miranda is a constitutional rule. 530 U. S. 428, 444 (2000). And that rule grants a corresponding right: If police fail to provide the Miranda warnings to a suspect before interrogating him, then he is generally entitled to have any resulting confession excluded from his trial.

eaglei3 posted...

The original intent of Miranda vs Arizona is still there

No, it's been updated as legal scholars continue to evaluate the constitution. This ruling was an attempt to undo that progress. The decision explicitly states that a Miranda violation is not tantamount to a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Dickerson said the exact opposite.

lilORANG posted...

Miranda is a prophylactic. There's nothing in the Constitution that says "a cop must read you Miranda." There is a protection against self-incrimination, and a right to counsel, so the Court made Miranda rights up as a way to protect against coercive interrogations.

so since failure to read Miranda isn't a direct Constitutional violation, you can't sue under 1983. If this dude's interrogation was actually coercive, then he could still sue. He just won't win for the reason that Miranda wasnt read.

Dickerson v US expanded it far beyond being a prophylactic. This ruling isn't attacking Miranda directly, it's attacking the case that expanded it.

Again, from the dissent: See 384 U. S., at 478479.

eaglei3 posted...

At first I thought this was nothing as you still have to have your Miranda rights read to you for any confessions or discussions to be used against you in the court of law.

But then I thought more about it and how this could lead to cops being more aggressive and coercive on trying to get people to confess if they have no fear of violating Miranda rights and being sued over them.

then you read my post and you saw that you don't have to have your miranda rights read to you for confessions to be used against you in the court of law right

right

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

wrong, the SCOTUS found that miranda rights are not rights.
[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


it appears that it is. here's the full ruling

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-499_gfbh.pdf

His written statement was admitted against him at trial.

The question we must decide is whether a violation of the Miranda rules provides a basis for a claim under 1983. We hold that it does not. If a Miranda violation were tantamount to a violation of the Fifth Amendment, our answer would of course be different.

the SCOTUS argument is that miranda is just a prophylactic, the dissent is "no it isn't"

TheBrainbuster posted...

The country is run by Tommy Tuberville, Dr Oz, and Herschel Walker.

Thanks GOP!

to be fair, dr oz is probably gonna get the shit kicked out of him in PA

he's running against a man who is pretty much the spirit animal of rural PA

if we still had the fairness doctrine every single person trump ever shit on would be able to get time on the radio shows trump loved to firehouse bullshit on, and shit on him right back