Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 99: Why Is No One Talking About Seth Rich?!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Typical liberals. Ignoring this important 10 month old story when literally nothing else newsworthy is going on. WELL YOU CAN'T SILENCE SEAN HANNITY, SOROS!
---

Soros can't, but Murdock probably will.
---

Tag
---

Are some conservatives really defending Duterte now?

Sometimes I wonder how Trump's approval rating would look if people weren't loyal to party affiliations to a fault.
---

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/867375873770622976

>.>

Dancedreamer posted...

Are some conservatives really defending Duterte now?

Sometimes I wonder how Trump's approval rating would look if people weren't loyal to party affiliations to a fault.

15? 20?
---

Ok, so no more doubt that the GOP and Trump Admin are literally, deliberately and knowingly trying to destroy this country in the name of profiting now.

Cool...
---

Regaro posted...

Ok, so no more doubt that the GOP and Trump Admin are literally, deliberately and knowingly trying to destroy this country in the name of profiting now.

That should have been obvious when Neil "Truck Drivers should just freeze to death" Gorsuch was nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court.
---

Trying to wreck the country's economy with a nonsensical disaster of a budget is a few steps higher on the scale than replacing Scalia with a guy who's similar but probably more corporatist.
---

SupremeZero posted...

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/867375873770622976

>.>

Dancedreamer posted...

Are some conservatives really defending Duterte now?

Sometimes I wonder how Trump's approval rating would look if people weren't loyal to party affiliations to a fault.

15? 20?

Are you fucking kidding me with that tweet
---

Unrelated, but still highly disturbing

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/comcast-is-trying-to-censor-a-site-that-claims-comcast-is-committing-fraud
---

Regaro posted...

Trying to wreck the country's economy with a nonsensical disaster of a budget is a few steps higher on the scale than replacing Scalia with a guy who's similar but probably more corporatist.

Not really probably. The case he cited above? The Truck Driver was thoroughly protected by his contract. There was NO rule of law dictating that he fucked up.

Gorsuch is MAXIMUM corporatist.
---

SupremeZero posted...

Regaro posted...

Trying to wreck the country's economy with a nonsensical disaster of a budget is a few steps higher on the scale than replacing Scalia with a guy who's similar but probably more corporatist.

Not really probably. The case he cited above? The Truck Driver was thoroughly protected by his contract. There was NO rule of law dictating that he fucked up.

Gorsuch is MAXIMUM corporatist.

I know. I just don't remember offhand how bad Scalia was in that regard because the first thing that comes to mind is his other issues
---

Regaro posted...

SupremeZero posted...

Regaro posted...

Trying to wreck the country's economy with a nonsensical disaster of a budget is a few steps higher on the scale than replacing Scalia with a guy who's similar but probably more corporatist.

Not really probably. The case he cited above? The Truck Driver was thoroughly protected by his contract. There was NO rule of law dictating that he fucked up.

Gorsuch is MAXIMUM corporatist.

I know. I just don't remember offhand how bad Scalia was in that regard because the first thing that comes to mind is his other issues

Scalia was genuinely Constitutionalist. He was entirely about letter of the law. His interpretations sucked, but that's on him.

Gorsuch is a Corporatist pretending he's a Constitutionalist.
---

SupremeZero posted...

Scalia was genuinely Constitutionalist. He was entirely about letter of the law.

This is not a view of him that remotely jives with his views on religion.

Though in matters that weren't open to being influenced by religion, I suppose you may be right.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

Sometimes I wonder how Trump's approval rating would look if people weren't loyal to party affiliations to a fault.

for all of ulti's "liberals only care about team blue hurr durr" talk, it's ridiculous how many trump drones only care about team red. if trump had been a democrat he'd already been vituperated hundreds of times by these people, but now they're all "GREATEST PRESIDENT SINCE WASHINGTON OMG."
---

SupremeZero posted...

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/867375873770622976

This would be funny if it didn't have such disastrous consequences.

Regaro posted...

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/comcast-is-trying-to-censor-a-site-that-claims-comcast-is-committing-fraud

fuck comcast though, for reals
---

The sad part is that there's not a single national Telco/ISP that's not complete shit
---

What is the story about the truck driver?
---

redrocket_pub posted...

What is the story about the truck driver?

A Truck Driver got stuck in the winter. His trailer's brakes broke down. He called services, but due to the weather they weren't going to show up for a while. He stayed as long as he could, until he was about to freeze to death, then gave up, detached the trailer, and drove off. The company fired him. The guy's contract included a clause that protects his decision if he feels he could be injured. This guy was about to DIE, so fuck being injured. Actually, at that point he was probably already injured from frostbite.

The case went to court, and literally everyone but Gorsuch went "Fuck this, the company's wrong". Gorsuch was the single dissenter.
---

SupremeZero posted...

redrocket_pub posted...

What is the story about the truck driver?

A Truck Driver got stuck in the winter. His trailer's brakes broke down. He called services, but due to the weather they weren't going to show up for a while. He stayed as long as he could, until he was about to freeze to death, then gave up, detached the trailer, and drove off. The company fired him. The guy's contract included a clause that protects his decision if he feels he could be injured. This guy was about to DIE, so fuck being injured. Actually, at that point he was probably already injured from frostbite.

The case went to court, and literally everyone but Gorsuch went "Fuck this, the company's wrong". Gorsuch was the single dissenter.

Geez!
---

Well it's nice that the right side won in spite of Gorsuch, but holy shit that is terrible.
---

Worth noting that most people believe Scalia would have actually been for the trucker.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

Are some conservatives really defending Duterte now?

Sometimes I wonder how Trump's approval rating would look if people weren't loyal to party affiliations to a fault.

To update this, probably around this many.

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/867419203065835520

Assuming it doesn't drop further.

For reference, Nixon's FLOOR was 22%, I believe.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

Are some conservatives really defending Duterte now?

I'm not one to defend elected vigilantism, but intent matters a lot when evaluating global leaders. His brutality isn't an effort to consolidate power or repress a group of people--he actually believes that he is solving the drug problem in his nation (and he isn't necessarily incorrect).
---

SupremeZero posted...

redrocket_pub posted...

What is the story about the truck driver?

A Truck Driver got stuck in the winter. His trailer's brakes broke down. He called services, but due to the weather they weren't going to show up for a while. He stayed as long as he could, until he was about to freeze to death, then gave up, detached the trailer, and drove off. The company fired him. The guy's contract included a clause that protects his decision if he feels he could be injured. This guy was about to DIE, so fuck being injured. Actually, at that point he was probably already injured from frostbite.

The case went to court, and literally everyone but Gorsuch went "Fuck this, the company's wrong". Gorsuch was the single dissenter.

yes I am sure that's all there is to this case
---

Yeah in the same way that the Holocaust solved the Jewish problem in Germany

Yes I feel comfortable invoking Godwin's Law on Duterte
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Yeah in the same way that the Holocaust solved the Jewish problem in Germany

Yes I feel comfortable invoking Godwin's Law on Duterte

Ridiculous comparison

Something more apt for you would be if Trump solved the gun violence problem in the US by murdering anyone who owned an automatic weapon
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

SupremeZero posted...

redrocket_pub posted...

What is the story about the truck driver?

A Truck Driver got stuck in the winter. His trailer's brakes broke down. He called services, but due to the weather they weren't going to show up for a while. He stayed as long as he could, until he was about to freeze to death, then gave up, detached the trailer, and drove off. The company fired him. The guy's contract included a clause that protects his decision if he feels he could be injured. This guy was about to DIE, so fuck being injured. Actually, at that point he was probably already injured from frostbite.

The case went to court, and literally everyone but Gorsuch went "Fuck this, the company's wrong". Gorsuch was the single dissenter.

yes I am sure that's all there is to this case

Under the rules of the US Department of Labor, a truck driver can't be fired for refusing to "operate" his vehicle because of "safety concerns." But in his dissent, Gorsuch didn't buy the argument that a refusal to "operate" the vehicle was even involved. In fact, he "operated" his truck, driving it to a gas station against company orders that he should have remained with the trailer.
Gorsuch wrote, "A trucker was stranded on the side of the road, late at night, in cold weather, and his trailer brakes were stuck. He called his company for help and someone there gave him two options. He could drag the trailer carrying the company's goods to its destination (an illegal and maybe sarcastically offered option). Or he could sit and wait for help to arrive (a legal if unpleasant option). The trucker chose None of the Above, deciding instead to unhook the trailer and drive his truck to a gas station. In response, his employer, TransAm, fired him for disobeying orders and abandoning its trailer and goods.
"It might be fair to ask whether TransAm's decision was a wise or kind one. But it's not our job to answer questions like that. Our only task is to decide whether the decision was an illegal one."

---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Yeah in the same way that the Holocaust solved the Jewish problem in Germany

Yes I feel comfortable invoking Godwin's Law on Duterte

Ridiculous comparison

Something more apt for you would be if Trump solved the gun violence problem in the US by murdering anyone who owned an automatic weapon

That's a holocaust level solution to me!
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Yeah in the same way that the Holocaust solved the Jewish problem in Germany

Yes I feel comfortable invoking Godwin's Law on Duterte

Ridiculous comparison

Something more apt for you would be if Trump solved the gun violence problem in the US by murdering anyone who owned an automatic weapon

Didn't Duterte actually compare himself to Hitler once?
---

I'm not sure why Seph is surprised that a strict literalist votes like a strict literalist.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Yeah in the same way that the Holocaust solved the Jewish problem in Germany

Yes I feel comfortable invoking Godwin's Law on Duterte

Ridiculous comparison

Something more apt for you would be if Trump solved the gun violence problem in the US by murdering anyone who owned an automatic weapon

Didn't Duterte actually compare himself to Hitler once?

Duterte told reporters that he had been "portrayed to be a cousin of Hitler" by critics.

Noting that Hitler had murdered millions of Jews, Duterte said, "There are 3 million drug addicts (in the Philippines). I'd be happy to slaughter them.

"If Germany had Hitler, the Philippines would have ...," he said, pausing and pointing to himself.

"You know my victims. I would like (them) to be all criminals to finish the problem of my country and save the next generation from perdition."

---

Dehumanizing criminals is pretty despicable though. Defending the dehumanizing of criminals is definitely Lawful Stupid, too.

Because then you start believing that everyone who is incarcerated is guilty.
---

I'm just saying on the savage scale, Duterte ranks below people like Assad and Maduro; meaning, it's still appropriate to have diplomatic relations with him.
---

https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/867427806413811712

Hmm.

""Retirement age voters are leaving in big numbers," Malloy added. "

Gee, I wonder why. Could it possibly be that attacking Medicare was a BAD idea?
---

Seph, I know you would literally pay money to get on your knees and suck Gorsuch off given the chance, but are you actually going to defend such a legitimately, non hyperbolic, EVIL decision like that? There is no legitimate defense of it, even by the letter of the law and every single other judge agreed on that.

It's a bad look for your golden turd, and I think you know it given your first response.
---

Why, because of the mode of execution being a bit more humane? Sure I'd rather take a bullet to the head then get gassed to death, I guess.

Serious question.
---

https://twitter.com/reesetheone1/status/867428540907741184

That is one sexy Independant swing.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I'm just saying on the savage scale, Duterte ranks below people like Assad and Maduro; meaning, it's still appropriate to have diplomatic relations with him.

I dunno, I feel like "marginally better than Assad" is really still pretty bad tbqh.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Seph, I know you would literally pay money to get on your knees and suck Gorsuch off given the chance, but are you actually going to defend such a legitimately, non hyperbolic, EVIL decision like that? There is no legitimate defense of it, even by the letter of the law and every single other judge agreed on that..

Because there is nuance to his decision. There is no "good" or "evil" decision by a judge. They interpret the law for better or worse.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

Seph, I know you would literally pay money to get on your knees and suck Gorsuch off given the chance, but are you actually going to defend such a legitimately, non hyperbolic, EVIL decision like that? There is no legitimate defense of it, even by the letter of the law and every single other judge agreed on that..

Because there is nuance to his decision. There is no "good" or "evil" decision by a judge. They interpret the law for better or worse.

Which nuance told him to ignore the Driver's contract?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Why, because of the mode of execution being a bit more humane? Sure I'd rather take a bullet to the head then get gassed to death, I guess.

Serious question.

I dunno man, I see a difference between murdering (mostly) criminals to theoretically solve a major issue in the country than systematically murdering innocent people based on their ethnicity.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Why, because of the mode of execution being a bit more humane? Sure I'd rather take a bullet to the head then get gassed to death, I guess.

Serious question.

I dunno man, I see a difference between murdering (mostly) criminals to theoretically solve a major issue in the country than systematically murdering innocent people based on their ethnicity.

There isn't much of one.
---

SupremeZero posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

Seph, I know you would literally pay money to get on your knees and suck Gorsuch off given the chance, but are you actually going to defend such a legitimately, non hyperbolic, EVIL decision like that? There is no legitimate defense of it, even by the letter of the law and every single other judge agreed on that..

Because there is nuance to his decision. There is no "good" or "evil" decision by a judge. They interpret the law for better or worse.

Which nuance told him to ignore the Driver's contract?

Do you think his thinking was as simple as "corporation good, worker bad"? If so, then I see no reason to bother researching the decision further
---

NFUN posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Why, because of the mode of execution being a bit more humane? Sure I'd rather take a bullet to the head then get gassed to death, I guess.

Serious question.

I dunno man, I see a difference between murdering (mostly) criminals to theoretically solve a major issue in the country than systematically murdering innocent people based on their ethnicity.

There isn't much of one.

Then you're a word I will get banned for saying
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

SupremeZero posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

Seph, I know you would literally pay money to get on your knees and suck Gorsuch off given the chance, but are you actually going to defend such a legitimately, non hyperbolic, EVIL decision like that? There is no legitimate defense of it, even by the letter of the law and every single other judge agreed on that..

Because there is nuance to his decision. There is no "good" or "evil" decision by a judge. They interpret the law for better or worse.

Which nuance told him to ignore the Driver's contract?

Do you think his thinking was as simple as "corporation good, worker bad"? If so, then I see no reason to bother researching the decision further

Put up or shut up already. If you think he had a reason, say it. If you don't, don't.
---

SupremeZero posted...

Put up or shut up already.

What's the point? Almost all of you are being so ridiculously reductive about this that it's like arguing with children.

Gorsuch is not some big bad evil man. The world is so rarely black and white.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

NFUN posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Why, because of the mode of execution being a bit more humane? Sure I'd rather take a bullet to the head then get gassed to death, I guess.

Serious question.

I dunno man, I see a difference between murdering (mostly) criminals to theoretically solve a major issue in the country than systematically murdering innocent people based on their ethnicity.

There isn't much of one.

Then you're a word I will get banned for saying

I don't think "correct" is a banned word.
---

All it takes is some cursory research to find an article that explains the jurisprudence behind his dissent (articulated by people who have actually studied the case)

http://abovethelaw.com/2017/03/the-frozen-truck-driver-case-democratic-senators-are-hanging-on-neil-gorsuch/

But, for the uninitiated, this is just kind of how conservative judges roll. His argument wasn’t that Maddin should have stayed there and froze to death, his argument is that the law provides no remedy for a trucker who needs to drive away to save his life. That’s a pretty standard conservative-jurist answer to, you know, problems in society.

Basically, he dissented because he does not believe it is the judiciary's role to be creating laws that prevent this sort of termination. That's the job of the legislative branch.

And for the record, the author of that article is a liberal.
---

Just because the 8 justices on the Supreme Court disagreed with Gorsuch doesn't mean that his opinion had no nuance. If you want to know his reasoning, then read his opinion.
---