VakAttack

I promise you, if the government in any place changes the law in response (or as retribution) to a corporation or person exercising free political speech and I'm aware of it, I will be making a comment. And when that attempt to subvert speech is defeated hilariously with very, very basic legal maneuvering, I will, in fact, laugh. Just like I laughed at pretty much every legal filing post election by His Orangeness.

Really impressive young man tough decision to have to make.

Nobody has said this.

https://abovethelaw.com/2023/03/disneys-lawyers-are-better-than-ron-desantiss-lawyers/

Dude, you literally put it that way.

So doing something unprecedented (McConnell) = ok. Doing something precedented (court expansion) = not ok, changing the rules. But I'm the one who wants it both ways.

So...to be clear...Congress can change the number of Justices...and has done so before multiple times, including literally in the Act you cite...and I am advocating that Congress should change the number of Justices....but that's changing the rules...even though the rules explicitly tell you that Congress can set the number of Justices....so....why is following the rules also changing the rules?

Constant outages, confusion about the identity of users, terrible PR stunts with disabled employees, mass firings, and then there's this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-offers-new-equity-grants-to-staff-938ee7f8 Turns out taking over somebody else's social media company is not the same as taking over somebody else's electric car company!

Where is this rule written down?

What is the rule they are changing?

Four non-champs above Alirez*

...my point is that, since McConnell is not abiding by norms, the Democrats should not either. You understand that the Garland situation predated the January 6 hearings, correct? The general concept of time and all that?

I feel like I'm taking ***duck duck goose** crazy pills, lol.

3. The Republicans just eschewed the rules, lol. You're literally arguing for the sides to follow different sets of rules. 4. Again, you're dragging this to January 6, where Pelosi did something she is explicitly allowed to do. And, in this scenario, we're in a post-norms world as seen by the Garland situation, so again, no, I don't think the Democrats should be playing by norms if the Republicans aren't going to. Plus, again, she approved 3 of the 5 nominations, all three of whom voted not to certify the valid 2020 election; she rejected two people who clearly were not fit to serve on that particular committee. Example: a man is on trial for a crime. Two of his best friends are probably not fit to be jurors on that trial, especially if there's a strong possibility they were witnesses to that crime.

1. Because they didn't have the votes from all of their Senators? Is your argument that politicians always vote with what's in line with what their constituents want? 2. N/A 3. Again, so you're saying the Dems should just play by the rules established by their opponents, thus ceding advantages to them. "You can only go outside the norms in ways that are approved by your opponent." That's just stupid, bad politics, and a recipe for losing. You're literally saying that only one party should be allowed to violate the norms. You then follow up explicitly showing how I am saying that if one party is going to break norms, than the other party should feel free to, and then just saying the phrase "you want it both ways", despite me literally saying that the democrats should play the same way the Republicans do. You understand that just repeating the phrase "you want it both ways" doesn't make it true, right? 4. You're changing topics to places you feel you are on more stable ground, nobody was talking about the January 6 committee. Then you're making assumptions. I don't care who was on the committee, though I had no problem w/ Pelosi saying "hey, you can't put people on the committee that are obviously very likely to be subpoenaed by said committee." The Democrats didn't refuse to have any Republicans on the committee, they refused a few certain members that were likely to be requested to testify at said committee, and then McCarthy, rather then picking from any of his other 215ish members (or by allowing the other 3 members he had nominated that hadn't been objected to to serve), cried and refused to appoint anybody, and thus volunteers were taken. Then you're comparing it to McConnell just obstructing a perfectly valid nomination.

Six of the 8 All Americans at 125 were upperclassmen, what are you talking about?

Super weird how this thread is being used to talk shit about Spencer Lee, but ok...

1. https://news.yahoo.com/poll-slim-majority-of-americans-support-expanding-supreme-court-as-confidence-wanes-194217399.html "Expansion was supported by 51% of independents, 72% of Democrats and just 27% of Republicans." 2. No. It isn't. Advice or consent. You just saying it is doesn't make it so. It's refusal to even consider it, and it wasn't based on the quality of the candidate, they refused to even consider it based on only their own partisan predilections. 3. The word "informed" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this not backed up by your actual writing. You very much are projecting, as evidenced by the fact you just make a blanket statement about how I want it both ways when I showed you exactly how I did not want it both ways, how I said that the Democrats should be playing byt the same rules as teh Republicans, which is to say, the strictest letter of the law, and not previous norms that are no longer being followed. You are the one advocating for two different standards, where the Republicans should be allowed to flout the norms, but the Democrats should just pretend they still exist. 4. Six Republicans. Bork wasn't close to making it through. And that's with two Democrats voting for his nomination. I didn't even discuss the January 6 hearings, so I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of tea in China or how I want it both ways when I haven't even espoused an opinion on the subject.

I didn't assume it was guaranteed, I said highly likely. Upsets happen (obviously). I believe what I said was Iowa and Spencer likely end up with 2 and 4 but for COVID, and instead ended up winning 1 and 3. I'm not granting Spencer 4 titles. He's a three timer, sadly (for me).

A slight difference between an something off the mat, like COVID, vs. actual wrestling action, but sure.

Agreed. Iowa and Spencer were about 3 days away from (extremely, extremely likely) two team titles during his career and 4 NCAA titles butfor the COVID cancellation. Instead it's 1 and 3. Thems the breaks.

That wasn't the point of his thread. He just wanted to be able to say the thing about Spencer getting having fewer championships than the 4 timers and more losses than "a bunch of guys".

They need to institute an age limit on Congresspersons' able to deal w/ technology, because watching some of these folks try to navigate even basic stuff is cringeworthy. This should obviously apply to the Senate which I would reasonably guess skews even older. Just have a committee, nobody over 50 allowed.

This is, of course, incorrect.