IHeartBadCode @ IHeartBadCode @kbin.social

Posts

1

Comments

618

Joined

2 yr. ago

A lot of churches will not see this as a sign for self reflection and will instead blame “woke” whatever.

Strange how raping little children, embezzlement, hate speech, subjugation of women and other abuses by various churches might convince people to not associate with a group that perpetuates that.

They literally are doing this to themselves and regularly fail to understand it like a Principal Skinner meme IRL.

I’m highly doubtful that a second Civil War would be like the first. I’m more of the opinion that we’d see something along the lines of the Troubles in Ireland.

Maintaining a fighting force requires a ton of money and the loss of international markets in the Civil War hurt the Confederacy greatly. Inflation in the Confederacy shot through the roof. Paired with the Union’s successful blockade, the Union securing most rivers, and the Union pretty much destroying every bit of infrastructure in the Confederate States, the Confederacy had massive economic woes that plagued morale.

I’m really doubtful that any State wanting to secede wants to lose access to the US dollar as it would wreck their economy. I just don’t see it being the way the Civil War was fought as it would almost guarantee a repeat.

Wars are fought along a lot more lines than just the ones where bullets matter.

That’s just a selfie with extra steps.

The United States is too big and needs to fail

Yeah, I don't think you understand what that statement means. A government failure would absolutely lead to a significant part of the the population dying. And that would be the good outcome for a lot of folks. A whole lot more would starve to death very slowly.

I would like to see it broken up into smaller independent countries

Very, very, very few States have the experience at this moment to operate as an independent nation. Like maybe four or five. The rest would either devolve into complete chaos and with it take a significant part of the population, or be invaded which would very likely have similar outcome.

With less military so that we can stay the fuck out of other people’s business.

Yeah, there's a lot of people like it or not that have an axe to grind. And wouldn't really matter to them if the US fell apart, in fact it would encourage them to settle that chip on their shoulder.

So I'm just going to tell you, your proposal would very likely get yourself killed and everyone you love killed and pretty much everyone commenting on this story killed as well. There would be a lot of dead bodies. Just literally look at any country that began falling apart and you can see that the body count starts increasing at a rapid pace when the Government completely falls apart.

I don't understand why people think that government falling apart or civil war means that a significant part of the country's population doesn't die? There's over 8,000 years of evidence of societies collapsing equaling a shit ton of people dying. If there's people wanting to die that badly, there are better ways that do not involve 10% to 20% of the civilian population.

The sheer speed at which the jury came to this determination is a really good sign that everyone on the jury was like "fuck this dude in particular". Not only that, what I think was hilarious was that Trump's testimony about his valuation in his NY civil trail was submitted and accepted as evidence for the determination on this fine. Like literally some Loony Toons Wile E. Coyote exploding in your face kind of thing.

This was such a massive L for Trump's legal team that I believe the correct lawyer term is HA HA HA HAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA!!

I swear, I'm just waiting for what creative backhoing their graves Trump's team will be doing in the appeals.

What's that saying? "Speech is free. Lies are expensive."

And just so everyone remembers this, Lake Gatún is the primary water source for fresh water in the area.

That little facet plays a non-zero role in any discussion about travel along the canal.

And for those wondering how a canal “uses” water. At some point a lake that was never connected to the ocean, has some small amount of it discharge into the ocean every time a boat moves through the canal.

You can use all kinds of partitions and fancy pumps to reduce the amount of salt water that gets in and fresh water that leaves, but you can never get it to zero. There will always be some salt water getting into the lake and some fresh water making it to the ocean. And that value begins to add up when you have thousands of boats.

Why do we even have that bucket‽

Reach a compromise solution that helps the situation and the public at large. 😤

Say fuck it all, it's all about me and my run for President. 😉

Yeah, heading into the 2018 midterm Trump tried to create a border crisis. It didn't work. This is their election trick, create a lot of smoke, rile up the base, think that it will rile everyone else up.

I mean let's look at the core aspect of Abbott's argument from his statement.

That is why the Framers included both Article IV, § 4, which promises that the federal government “shall protect each [State] against invasion,” and Article I, § 10, Clause 3, which acknowledges “the States’ sovereign interest in protecting their borders.” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 419 (2012) (Scalia, J., dissenting).

Right out the gate, Abbott is based his ideology on a dissenting opinion. That is, the NON-MAJORITY finding of the court in Arizona v. United States. In fact, Arizona v. United States indicated explicitly that enforcement of the border was the sole privilege of the Federal Government. So right out the gate Abbott is literally using a case that ruled the opposite of the determination he indicated in his statement.

Additionally, Art. I, § 10, C. 3 of the Constitution.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Historically this was used for Native American invasions of property and so the key factor in cases around this is "will not admit of delay". Texas is not burning. No historical read of this section of the Constitution supports immigrants coming into the Nation. By definition as we have it thus far, Texas is not being invaded. Additionally, Scalia's conceptualization of this section, no other Justice has joined in on that understanding. So outside of the opinion of a single justice, a Governor just saying "I'm being invaded! I get to invalidate federal law!" nobody else has ever indicated this is the way it should be read.

With Art. I, § 10, C. 3, you can say "I'm being invaded!" But you still have to follow the law. You can fight invaders and maintain the law of this land, they are not mutually exclusive things, no matter how hard Abbott or Scalia wishes it to be otherwise.

And finally, the Art. IV, § 4 argument.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Again, no court would uphold that Texas is being invaded. But Abbott is adamant about Biden "isn't enforcing…" And the thing is, Governors do not get to legally make that determination. What laws are and are not being enforced by a President is the sole prerogative of the Executive branch. (Wayte v. United States)

The Governor of Texas cannot just unilaterally make a determination that the President isn't XYZing. That's what the court system is for and distinctly the thing that Abbott has lost. If the Governor felt that the President was not holding up their end, they have every right under Article III of the Constitution to take it up there. Which that's what Abbott did and lost. Also, why when he was questioned if his defiance would be upheld by SCOTUS, he merely indicated that he felt the 5th Circuit would uphold it. Meaning, he knows that SCOTUS will overturn any determination the Governor is making on this front.

And with all of that, his core argument has nothing. It's easy to pick apart. Now here's the thing, Gov. Abbott is not stupid in the legal sense. He's quite aware that his determination is unfounded. He's banking on stirring the pot enough to make either Biden do something so that can be plastered all over the place or getting the issue fresh into his base's minds.

And like I said, this is exactly what they did 2018 and lost. Abbott is just trying to get under everyone's skin and he seems determined to spend as much of Texan taxpayers' money in litigation to do that one thing.

I submit Nintendo's online service as evidence that, that is not true in the least bit. MK8, Smash, Splatoon 3, all of them have atrocious online. Pokemon Unite using Tencent's online services runs circles around anything Nintendo has offered with online being a major factor and that's on same hardware.

Nintendo has their IP and they take extremely good care of it. No argument there. But holy shit is Nintendo's online service absolute trash. I will always have something Nintendo because I must always have my Animal Crossing, but holy fuck, let's not kid ourselves about Nintendo's online stuff. Anything that's using Nintendo's servers for match making or their network stack for connectivity is just garbage.

I will always love a good Mario, Pikmin, or Animal Crossing but Nintendo clearly isn't investing a single cent into online anything. And that is just my 2¢.

Texas has a relatively huge economy that we kind of depend on

They're physically located in Texas yes, but Texas doesn't own them, they're privately owned or owned by a foreign nation. Like the largest oil refinery in Texas isn't even US, it's owned by the Government of Saudi Arabia. Texas isn't claiming ownership of that.

In fact a lot of Texas' economy relies on access to the US dollar, of which they would absolutely lose access to if there was even the hint of leaving. One of the things that really boiled over in the US Civil War was that the United States indicated to its trading partners of the time, that they could not do deals with the rebel states. The South was quickly going broke. It would literally be the exact same thing in present day, Texas wouldn't have an economy because the one thing that keeps that economy running is something they would absolutely lose. Access to every trading partner on the planet.

At best they might be able to do bilateral trade with not friendly to the US, but they wouldn't be able to ship it out. The Gulf of Mexico is firmly the United States and Texas distinctly has no navy even closely matching the United States. They can't go south because "of obvious reasons", and they wouldn't be allowed in any airspace and likely the FAA would ban every single flight in and out of the State.

But remove the fact that they would have to take State ownership of private business and somehow sneak large quantities of it out of their State. The other country they're trading with knows Texas is trading at a disadvantage. There's no way they're asking fair market value for shit. There's no way those dollars sustain their economy. Losing access to the US dollar would absolutely wreck Texas' economy and that's the exact point, because when enough Texans are hungry and their economy has turned to dust, the citizens will likely have a heart-to-heart with their Governor about this whole "leaving" businesses.

Also this would absolutely fuck over all the not-assholes that live down there

Ah yeah, it will. I live in Tennessee and know full well that should our State decide to "leave" that basically I'm dead. Between the likely intolerance to people sticking to the middle ground and an almost certain conscription, the not-assholes would likely be the first among the dead. I mean, that's just how civil conflict works anywhere. It sucks and is also a pretty good reason that taking the middle ground is not always ideal.

I just want Biden to do something other than give stern words of warning

Well the thing to remember is that we're supposed to be a country of law and order. We're supposed to settle things inside a court room. And ideally, that's where Biden should go. Abbott's reasoning is completely unsound legally and relies on a reading of Art. I, § 10, C. 3 that's only enjoyed by Scalia.

I get the temptation to hand out smack down, but we should stick to order at all times. Even with the Civil War before, the US waited until the Confederates struck first. All the cards are in the US government's favor. All the economic factors are in the US favor. There's not a whole lot that Texas has over the United States on this matter. There's no reason for the US to even remotely push on the matter while Abbott is clearly content with digging his own grave here.

Yeah, he's using a reading of Art. I, § 10, C. 3 that only Scalia has ascribed to. There's literally nothing in this statement that he released that has any kind of sound legal footing.

Even more interesting, Arizona v. United States literally said that the Federal Government and more specifically, Congress has an undeniable and broad right to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization. Literally the case Abbott is stating and using as justification says the exact opposite of what he is saying in his determination. I mean literally it establishes that the US CANNOT have 50 different immigration standards.

So I guess Abbott is looking for more litigation to blow his state's money on?

The point is if Abbott is really going to stick this whole path.

Abbott is going to do what he's going to do. He's just digging a hole deeper and deeper for himself and for his State.

Abbott's statement indicates that the President is violating (insert a lot of stuff) but Abbott has not made that argument successfully in court. The courts have not sided with him on this point. Which is why he's trying to do this unilateral stuff and mentioning "compact" and what have you. None of it has legal standing and he knows it.

Good example in his citation of Arizona v. United States, Abbott is not quoting the majority opinion. He is quoting the dissenting opinion, you know the one that the Court as a whole DID NOT go with. And he's using Scalia's conceptualization of Art. I § 10 C. 3 which no one else on the Court agreed with. Abbott is using legal arguments that are not legal arguments, they are the opinion of a single justice. That's how incredibly shoddy the ground is on which he is placing his argument. The Governor of Texas is just randomly selecting opinions from Justices, and ones that were not the majority opinion, to make his case.

Even more so, Ted Cruz is in the Senate trying to get a bill passed that will legitimize some of what Abbott is doing. Abbott's current argument would be like him pointing to that bill and saying "Well Congress purposed it! It didn't pass and become law, but they purposed it, so I'm allowed to do (insert whatever)." Like he talks a lot of law in his statement, but none of it is actual legal arguments. That really the thing I think a lot of people are forgetting here. Abbott for lack of a better term, it quite literally just yanking shit form his ass and calling it law of the land.

The United States is fully aware that Texas has no leg to stand on, so the US is more than willing to give Texas as much rope as they feel they need to hang themselves with. The litigation costs are already skyrocketing for Texas and I guess Abbott and Texas as a whole is feeling okay to spend another billion losing in court.

So Abbott can continue to play this game if he feels so inclined, but it's all losses and litigation bills up ahead. He doesn't have a legal argument and the fact that Senator Cruz is trying so hard to "help him out" is evidence that Abbott has nothing.

Very light details from the court on this.

The application to vacate injunction presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is granted. The December 19, 2023 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, case No. 23-50869, is vacated.

I would be cautious to read any deeper than that. The issue for the injunction wasn't "does Texas have a right to protect their border?" The lower court had sided with Texas that the US had waived its sovereign immunity from state tort claims seeking injunctive relief, via the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Quick primer for those not knowing. A bill is a purposed thing in Congress, if both chambers approve it and the President signs it, it becomes law. These laws can be something like "The Department of Transportation shall build a highway that connects Wapakoneta, OH to Indianapolis, IN" The Department of Transportation is then allowed to build a road and they have to publish all kinds of rules about how they're going about building it (because remember the law only says build a road, not where to build it, out what material, etc...). We call this regulation. Regulation is NOT law (as Congress+President can only do that) but can carry the weight of it.

The APA is a law that sets up a procedure for regulation. Texas had argued that the Biden Administration did not check off all of the boxes required by the APA to remove the razor wire fence that Texas had erected. The Administration had indicated that, Texas was the one violating all kinds of Federal stuff, there isn't a need to check the specific boxes that Texas indicated in Court because Texas is the one who started this whole mess. The Fifth Circuit agreed with Texas that "Hey look, I get it, Texas is being a weak ass bitch. BUT, APA says so on those check boxes". It was a really technical win for Texas.

So it basically boiled down to a question of where those specific line items in the APA are applicable when Texas is the one being the bitch about everything? I'm doubtful SCOTUS viewed this as a larger question about State vs Federal because even the Fifth Circuit (who is very conservative) indicated that the Federal Government was mostly right, BUT, if they didn't like them forcing that part of the APA on them (the US Government), Congress ought to go back and clarify things.

EDIT: Oh I guess I should indicate what the whole spat started over. Last October Border Patrol snipped some razor wire fence that Texas had put up. Texas sued for destruction of State Property. That's what this whole thing is all about. Now that the fence can be fully removed with this order from SCOTUS, it's likely that Texas will seek recompense for their property (AKA, Texas will attempt to make the US taxpayer pay for the clean up of the fence and the US government will likely want to send the clean up bill to Texas).

Anyone remember that lady that was using the book ban in Texas to remove Scholastic books and do away with the book fair and failed to mention that she was employed by Scholastic's competitor?

I sure do.

Neither Brave Books nor Burkhardt disclosed that Burkhardt is an employee of Brave Books

That's always the fun thing about any law, but especially of really stupid ones. Give people and inch and they will abuse the fuck out of anything for their own gains.

We go live to the superintendent in a special event already underway.

that it isn’t simply the idealism of an age gone by

It is always this. I mentioned Angela Davis' book and in it she makes the point that we celebrate these monumental moments because they tell us a story. A story of democracy triumphant. But those events they weren't in reality 100% monumental, they were big yes, but always the details paint a complex story.

It isn't an age gone by because it is an age that hasn't come. And it's not an age to ever come. It's an idea, a dream, a thing for us to work towards always. If you ever look at the Great Seal of the United States you'll notice an incomplete pyramid. It's to symbolize that our work is never done. Because the people who created this nation knew, democracy was never going to be a government that could ever be a one and done situation.

The generation which commences a revolution rarely completes it.

— Thomas Jefferson

American history is not something dead and over. It is always alive, always growing, always unfinished.

— John F. Kennedy

The unfinished work of perfecting our union falls to each of us.

— Barack Obama

If bad faith in kind breeds more bad faith and our own good faith is weaponized against the public good, then what?

The young. For all the ills and failures of society that old people seem to mete out, it is routinely the young that cure it.

It is short sighted, but just what else am I supposed to see beyond the cliff we’re hurtling towards?

That is perhaps the most beautiful thing about all of this. You cannot see beyond the cliff, it's not short sighted, it's being pragmatic. Big ideas like equality and democracy these are things that ask us to look past what's in front of us.

And for that reasons is why it is faith in each other that we're going to make this world better for the younger generations, that we will somehow provide the children of this world the tools that they need to continue onward with this unfinished work. There's a saying, I'm likely to butcher it, but it goes "nothing of value was obtained with ease." I know that faith is routinely shaken in this world, but though you cannot see it we must hold faith that we will keep going.

And I am no person of religion so faith in something isn't something that I just peg as ordained or providence will see us though. The faith I speak of is found in people. I have seen people come together in common cause to set off change. Heck, we've mentioned a few in our previous comments. People are strong and that strength is what strikes fear in all those who bring the ills we're talking about in this world.

That's how you know it's true, if there was no strength, they would not spend so much energy trying to divide us. They, the ruling class and rich, know this already and sometimes it's difficult for us to believe.

I see younger kids these days and goddamn are they clever as hell. Young and unbridled at times yes, but they seems to be keenly aware of the shoddy situation they've been placed into and seem more than ever willing to address it. Sometimes a bit misguided, but that's just inexperience not malice.

You know sometimes I listen to that song by Louis Armstrong, What A Wonderful World. The man lived through two world wars and segregation, what wonderful world could he have been talking about? And I am starting to see it now. He's talking about potential in this world. He lived in the "the worse" for him and the children he sees are born ahead of that with all the unseen possibilities ahead of them.

I hear babies cry, I watch them grow, They'll learn much more than I'll ever know. And I think to myself what a wonderful world.

I know that there's going to be a world I cannot even imagine, that's going to make the world I live in feel shameful. And I know that, because I have faith that it will come to pass. Maybe it is false hope, maybe we will not turn the wheel before we get to the cliff. But buying into the notion that it is a false hope seems to sell short the limitless possibilities this world can be made into and the great strength of the people who inhabit this world.

For melanoma at the moment.

However, it is a TLPO vaccine which teaches your immune system one of the tricks cancer uses to evade being taken care of by your white blood cells. So it's application could be huge.

That said, as you might have noticed, it has to be personalized for the patient as it targets the specific way your cancer is hiding itself. Personalized medicine is still very expensive, but quickly being able to ID the specific sequence of DNA that gave your cancer it's hiding ability could be something that computers help us with one day.

So if this does get approved, it will likely be incredibly expensive per patient.

If they still can recognize such a simple reality, that recognition comes with a price that is often decided as not worth paying for those people, for whatever reasons they tell themselves

Let me quote you something:

Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.

— Judge Learned Hand (1944)

The fight of a right is indeed one thing, but it does not win the hearts of people. An injustice revealed at a cost of another injustice does not win the hearts of people. The US Civil War won us the 13th amendment but it did not win the hearts of the people. Law is a piece of paper and means only that which people extend to it and no more. Law protects the people to the extent that law is enforced by the people and no less.

Out of the Civil War came share cropping, Jim Crow laws, and disenfranchisement of those who were formerly enslaved. The evil didn't abate, it evolved. It was not the blood shed there that gave salvation, it was the blood there that began the march.

Wouldn’t it be better to still remain chattel while trying to think of how to solve this all amicably

Absolutely not, but at the same time it's foolish to think it was settled. And that's the point I am making, no win is absolute, but every loss is an erosion. This "win" that the other person believes it to be is not such. It is a win if you are of the mindset that the crimes or Trump require a person who took an oath to uphold the law in bad faith was justified.

In your life you've likely wanted this world to be different, to be equal. But that can only be found not by law onto others but by mindset by others. And if law requires equality and the minds of people have not change, no sheet of paper can protect us unless we have faith in that sheet of paper. No document can prevent evil unless we maintain faith in the people who have sworn an oath to do such.

Is that not the problem we see? People who wear uniforms who swear to serve and protect in constant violation of that? People who have taken oath to hold those in violation of that promise who fail to uphold their end of the bargain?

I would say, people taken it upon themselves to believe that ends justify the means is the root of the problem, not the solution. That is why I ask do we believe we got the win in the Civil War? With the 19th Amendment? And the answer is what I've said to the other person.

There is no top of the hill. There is no "out". Democracy is not a spectator sport, it requires all of us to continually and forever until the last of us is gone, fight the indoctrination with education, fight the power grabs with justice, and fight greed with humility.

The events I speak about are not a conclusion of things, but the start of things. They are not wins, they events that direct us. Change us and show our resolve to continue. Evil sinks back because they believe we are resolute and when we show that we are not, then our struggle becomes more difficult.

And to quote:

What I fear about many of these observances is that they tend to enact historical closures. They are represented as historical high points on a road to an ultimately triumphant democracy

— Angela Davis (Freedom is a Constant Struggle: Closures and Continuities)

In short, the idea that "freedom" continues with the shedding of blood is incorrect or in the best of light, short sighted. Freedom is maintained in the minds and hearts of the people and when ephemeral wins come at the cost of holding no faith to an oath to protect and uphold the law. Then it is no real win, it is an erosion. There are too many examples of how bad faith poisoned the US in the Reconstruction Era that followed the US Civil War. Of how bad faith fueled hate groups to win the hearts and minds of the people at that time.

Perhaps that won't be the case with this revelation. I honestly hope you all are correct and I am incorrect, to me that would be best for me to be incorrect on this event. I would want nothing more. But any weakness in our resolve to be a nation of laws is a strength to authoritarianism. Any action of bad faith courts more of the like and makes repulsion that more difficult.

I don’t think the costs of this will be very high

You know what? I'll give you that. I'm hopeful enough this blows over without much ado. But IDK, I've seen smaller mole hills turn mountains.

The kind of people who meaningfully distrust the IRS aren’t interested in facts

The thing is, it isn't binary. It's a range of folks. And I would rather us not lose ranks. It's easier to indicate trust in something if there's not an actual reason to distrust.

Also like how do you feel about jury nullification?

Aw man! Complicated. Because you can really start going all kinds of dark places if you start thinking a Judge willingly could hand out bad instructions to the jury. A not guilty is a lot harder to have an appellate review and if you try to fix it that way, do you want to have not guilty become easier to appeal?

Like we could have a big old day about that topic. Wooo. That's a can and it is marked "Oops all worms".