Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 200: Sayonara Nimrata

(+) Yeah! (+)

Para was thinking of the 5-4 decision that was brought up earlier in the topic (I believe) allowing the continued use of racially discriminatory gerrymandering in Texas, I believe. It was from late June. Still racist voter suppression, which is the Republican MO, so it's understandable how he might make the error.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/metaltango/status/1050848808110673920?s=21

L&O SVU tackled the biggest threat of our time, incels

Dammit, wanted to post this, lol.
---

Inviso posted...

Para was thinking of the 5-4 decision that was brought up earlier in the topic (I believe) allowing the continued use of racially discriminatory gerrymandering in Texas, I believe. It was from late June. Still racist voter suppression, which is the Republican MO, so it's understandable how he might make the error.

And then he changed his mine when he realized liberals voted for it.

Proving my point. Liberals ONLY care about the who. If a D follows a name they agree with literally anything.

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Did you miss the part where he had a long conversation between those posts and he realizes he was wrong?

Paratroopa1 posted...

I think my arguments against the ND law are too weak from a textual perspective to ding Kavanaugh for

No, he is just trying to save face, Chris. He did not say what you said. He even in the bold shows he still isn't understanding what Suprak said. How can he be dinging Kavanaugh at all regarding it when it was 6-2 without Kavanaugh.
---

How many alts does Ulti need to escape being blocked?
---

All of them

We're all Ulti alts now
---

If everyone is Ulti

Then no one is Ulti
---

I seem to have 6 ultis on my list
---

TheRock1525 posted...

How many alts does Ulti need to escape being blocked?

Do you really think I'm above making 201 accounts?

Suprak the Stud posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Something I don't think was discussed here - in a 5-4 decision (Kavanaugh voted in the majority) this week the Supreme Court upheld a North Dakota law requiring voters to have a physical mailing address, not just a P.O. box. Why is this important? Because in North Dakota there are thousands of Native Americans living on reservations who do not have addresses, only P.O. boxes. Before now that was never an issue, but now they can't vote, and with less than a month before the midterms there is precious little time to do anything about it.

Just in case you thought GOP voter suppression was no longer a thing.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-dakota-voter-id-law-upheld-by-supreme-court-could-affect-senate-race/

1) Kavanaugh didnt vote because he wasnt present during arguments
2) Breyer and Sotomayor voted with the 6-2 majority

Unless youre talking about a second ND voter ID case Im not aware about in which case sorry for my snark!

I fucked up and should have researched more thoroughly. Thanks for the link.

For the record, it's still a really gross law and shouldn't have been upheld.
---

UltiCalledIt posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

How many alts does Ulti need to escape being blocked?

Do you really think I'm above making 201 accounts?

At that point, it's pretty clear that you're literally obsessed
---

TheRock1525 posted...

How many alts does Ulti need to escape being blocked?

Guy is desperate. I think he had a breakdown when he realized he'd burned so much good will that even faking being abused wasn't causing anyone to bite, so he's pulling out as many accounts as he can to try and get people to interact with him by posting the most enraging stuff he can find.
---

please don't respond to ulti on my behalf

It took some work because every single article seems to leave it out, but it does seem that the decision was 6-2 and I was conflating it with a different ruling, not sure which one

Paratroopa1 posted...

please don't respond to ulti on my behalf

Triggered.
---

Paratroopa1 posted...

It took some work because every single article seems to leave it out, but it does seem that the decision was 6-2 and I was conflating it with a different ruling, not sure which one

Assuming you mean SCOTUS's decision not to intervene in the ND ruling... I'm actually not so sure.

WaPo calls it 6-2 but following its citation to it is to a small blurb they previously published that simply says they weren't going to hear it. SCOTUSBlog, where I went first, is a lot more cagey on the subject. They simply note that they'd need 5 of the 8 justices (since Kavanaugh was sitting it out) to agree to hear it and that they apparently failed to reach that. If it was truly 6-2 I imagine they'd say that given they also link to the literal order and Ginsberg's dissent so it's not like they're just guessing. ("apparently fell short" is their literal phrasing.)

My takeaway here is that we don't know the actual numbers here other than "didn't get to 5 to agree to hear the challenge" and that of those who did want to hear it we know Ginsberg and Kagan are among them because Ginsberg publicly dissented and Kagan joined it. There's no rule I know of stating the others had to issue an opinion for it, and indeed there's no "majority opinion" here. The literal order only contains Ginsberg's dissent (along with the topline of them not taking the challenge.)

As far as I know it could have been 6-2 or it could have been 4-4 and Sotomayor and Breyer simply didn't care to join the dissent for whatever reason. I agree that them staying out of it entirely makes it look 6-2 but this wasn't a decision in the sense that both sides argued before the court and they issued a ruling. They simply went "nope we don't want to hear this" and the lower ruling stands.

Coverage of this seems really screwed up/dumbed down though. SCOTUSBlog was the most informative but even then I kind of wanted a bit more but I suppose that's not entirely in their lane.

Edit: SCOTUSBlog link if you want to read their article on it: www.scotusblog.com/2018/10/court-stays-out-of-north-dakota-voting-dispute/
---

Is there no official government resource to review SCOTUS rulings?

Or is it just slow on the uptake because its government run and thus the media gets first crack
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Is there no official government resource to review SCOTUS rulings?

Or is it just slow on the uptake because its government run and thus the media gets first crack

They throw it up on their website but I think there's also print versions and such. Looking on their site though I can't find this specific order which is... weird. Unless I'm looking in the wrong place which is definitely possible because it's not like it's exactly user-friendly to pick out something like this as far as I can tell.

Here's SCOTUSBlog's link (they took out the relevant part and posted it by itself. On SCOTUS's site they have everything together so it's pages and pages.): www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/18A335-Brakebill-v.-Jaeger.pdf
---

So while the Senate odds are slipping away, it appears that Dems are back to a 4 in 5 chance to take the House and have a good chance to pick up about 7 governorships. I think whatever boost they got from Kavanaugh getting confirmed is likely gonna give Republicans another seat in the Senate but the backlash is gonna put them 15 or so seats down in the House and put Governors at about 50/50 in the country.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

So while the Senate odds are slipping away, it appears that Dems are back to a 4 in 5 chance to take the House and have a good chance to pick up about 7 governorships. I think whatever boost they got from Kavanaugh getting confirmed is likely gonna give Republicans another seat in the Senate but the backlash is gonna put them 15 or so seats down in the House and put Governors at about 50/50 in the country.

House odds are rubbish. It may work out that way but it is largely based off generic ballot polls instead of actual local races.
---

A list of reasons I can think of for why women wait a long time before coming forward with sexual assault/rape accusation:

-Fear of speaking out against a popular figure (aka the same reason why many on the Internet are afraid to post dissenting opinions)
-Fear of retribution
-Not wanting to remember the incident and a simple desire to move on
-Not wanting your own image to be tarnished by accusation
-Not wanting to seem like you're preying on a person you think is guilty

I don't know, it seems like in the past women who have tried to pursue sexual assault allegations against an individual tend to be viewed negatively (e.g. Ashley Judd having tried to bring Weinstein to justice for years).
---

LinkMarioSamus posted...

A list of reasons I can think of for why women wait a long time before coming forward with sexual assault/rape accusation:

-Fear of speaking out against a popular figure (aka the same reason why many on the Internet are afraid to post dissenting opinions)
-Fear of retribution
-Not wanting to remember the incident and a simple desire to move on
-Not wanting your own image to be tarnished by accusation
-Not wanting to seem like you're preying on a person you think is guilty

I don't know, it seems like in the past women who have tried to pursue sexual assault allegations against an individual tend to be viewed negatively (e.g. Ashley Judd having tried to bring Weinstein to justice for years).

While a lot of these are true, I think we neglect a certain reason a lot also.

A lot of these happen in situations in which they are imbibing alcohol and either 1. Their memory is spotty regarding the incident as a whole. Or 2. They were the initiator under the influence of alcohol.
---

I forgot one:

-Not wanting to give the accused any additional publicity
---

LinkMarioSamus posted...

I forgot one:

-Not wanting to give the accused any additional publicity

I do not think that is a real one. No one wants publicity for that. Lol
---

Inviso posted...

I cannot block him, unfortunately.

why not?
---

^smfffc
---

ah
---

LinkMarioSamus posted...

A list of reasons I can think of for why women wait a long time before coming forward with sexual assault/rape accusation:

One merely has to look at the case in Steubenville Ohio in 2012 to understand why women don't come out with sexual assault and rape accusations.
---

one merely has to read the sephy, ulti, extha and MWC posts in this topic series to understand why women don't want to come out with sexual assault and rape accusations
---

Runemistress posted...

LinkMarioSamus posted...

A list of reasons I can think of for why women wait a long time before coming forward with sexual assault/rape accusation:

One merely has to look at the case in Steubenville Ohio in 2012 to understand why women don't come out with sexual assault and rape accusations.

Yeah, between Steubenville and Brock Turner, I think women have a LOT more to worry about when it comes to the possibility of rape than men when it comes to the possibility of false accusations.
---

Apparently there's a statistic somewhere that says that only 6-8% rape allegations are false.
---

Damn I am not even sure how you resolve that Arabia situation.

They are threatening to tank the world economy and ally with Russia if we do anything against them. And, I can't see them handing over the people who killed this guy either.

That is quite a situation.
---

They fear no repercussions because the literal president of the US is in their pocket - he admitted as much on camera.

The Republicans allowed this to happen, and they're such chicken shits that they're going to let themselves be walked on.

What leadership. What profiles in courage. Unable to stand up to anything.

Your hand-wringing is just another case of your desire for status quo continuation, even when outside actors change that status quo. And the authoritarians of the world love to take advantage of weaklings like you.
---

While Trump is more in their pocket than most Presidents would be because of his business empire, I dont see how any other President would resolve it either.

The US government itself is in their pocket
---

Yeah, being in bed with saudi arabia definitely isn't just a republican thing.
---

The US should stand up to Saudi Arabia and their buffoon crown prince who is probably smart enough to play Jared Kushner but is out of his depth with someone like Putin. You know who has big oil reserves and also has other businesses? We do. Let's start a trade war on oil and see how SA can afford to pay massive welfare for princes then.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

They fear no repercussions because the literal president of the US is in their pocket - he admitted as much on camera.

The Republicans allowed this to happen, and they're such chicken shits that they're going to let themselves be walked on.

What leadership. What profiles in courage. Unable to stand up to anything.

Your hand-wringing is just another case of your desire for status quo continuation, even when outside actors change that status quo. And the authoritarians of the world love to take advantage of weaklings like you.

lmfao what in the literal fuck is this haha.
---

red sox 777 posted...

The US should stand up to Saudi Arabia and their buffoon crown prince who is probably smart enough to play Jared Kushner but is out of his depth with someone like Putin. You know who has big oil reserves and also has other businesses? We do. Let's start a trade war on oil and see how SA can afford to pay massive welfare for princes then.

OPEC can literally print it's own money with their monopoly.
---

Corrik posted...

red sox 777 posted...

The US should stand up to Saudi Arabia and their buffoon crown prince who is probably smart enough to play Jared Kushner but is out of his depth with someone like Putin. You know who has big oil reserves and also has other businesses? We do. Let's start a trade war on oil and see how SA can afford to pay massive welfare for princes then.

OPEC can literally print it's own money with their monopoly.

They don't have a monopoly anymore if Russia and the US move against them. We've got oil too!
---

red sox 777 posted...

Corrik posted...

red sox 777 posted...

The US should stand up to Saudi Arabia and their buffoon crown prince who is probably smart enough to play Jared Kushner but is out of his depth with someone like Putin. You know who has big oil reserves and also has other businesses? We do. Let's start a trade war on oil and see how SA can afford to pay massive welfare for princes then.

OPEC can literally print it's own money with their monopoly.

They don't have a monopoly anymore if Russia and the US move against them. We've got oil too!

We don't have enough to support ourselves. And, Russia isn't going to work with us if Saudi Arabia is going to ally with them in response to us.
---

We would need to work with Iran too, which is already a Russia ally. And Qatar, which SA is still blockading.
---

Crazy idea: But how about we invest in renewable energy and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
---

Ashethan posted...

Crazy idea: But how about we invest in renewable energy and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

What kind of car do you drive?
---

Ashethan posted...

Crazy idea: But how about we invest in renewable energy and reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.

No way, we should focus on space exploration so we can find more nonrenewable fuel sources on other planets.
---