Headlines that signal that the story will be misleading and/or stupid

[President Bush]

Promoting the false perception that Trump’s 2020 election subversion case is the subject of wide controversy and debate within the American community?

You really need to step out of your bubble.

No me quedo en burbuja. Estoy en Bolivia.

[stanky]

Trump's supremes have added a new level of absurdity to the playing field...Presidential immunity. Bush went far with the post 9/11 empowerment of the far right agenda, giving elections to the whims of billionaires, basically.
Advertisements, oddly enough, seem to work, and they cost money. Who's got it? Soon the vote is more of a tax than anything meaningful. Free speech is up against the wall. Not money; it is free speech. All predictable directions, and evidence of the overall intent, which is stuck in the dark ages. Politics becomes a tool for corruption. You need money to play. TA was right. Mamon is king.

My optimism lies in the potential of those beyond the political. Scientists, essentially.
Eventually, one (a team) will come up with a cure for psychopathy.
That would prevent its influence from spreading.
Both parties vehemently agree that we have the right to kill others. The responsibility to do that!
So it continues...an expression of extreme sociopathy...at the very core of our society.

It's not worthy of our attention. It wants to suck you dry; needs your money, desperately. Same like god. Always broke. Fuck 'em. Maybe do something positive, independant of it. The cumulative effect of those, imho, usurps the other game; politics...designed to work at a snails pace...and oddly enough, being a pawn of the technology du jour.



that's why i believe in science

[Admin]

that's why i believe in science

Until you don't.

[sparks]

Besides, it's counter intuitive to 'believe' in science. You can know it works, or not. It still works either way. Or as Dawkins once put it: "Because it (science) WORKS BITCHES!"

[Meadmaker]

Trump's supremes have added a new level of absurdity to the playing field...Presidential immunity.

I finally got around to reading the opinion of the court in "Trump v. United States", the ruling on Presidential immunity.

I found two things to be true that are frequently true of Supreme Court opinions.

1. They are difficult to read.
2. The media accounts are almost always wrong, or at least misleading.

In reality, it's not as bad as it has been made out to be.

I don't particularly like the way it's written. I think it is even more prone to misinterpretation than most other opinions.

[arthwollipot]

Besides, it's counter intuitive to 'believe' in science. You can know it works, or not. It still works either way. Or as Dawkins once put it: "Because it (science) WORKS BITCHES!"

I don't think that was Dawkins.

[stanky]

2nd year algebra teaches how to find multiple solutions to an equation.
science class is also expanding to allow ya'll back in.
I'm certain none of us knows our ass from a hole in the ground, in regard to the nature of things.
it's all conjecture, so far.
we can describe a universe that is already gone, marginally at that. hardly worth getting all huffy.

I will defend it (the universe) against your onslaught of limitations!

[President Bush]

Headlines that signal that this story will be misleading and/or stupid, lol!

Looks like there might be a number of things Trump/his lawyers sure don't want made public... made public in the next few weeks tying Trump to the January six crime scene. Trump lawyers know what Smith has, they've already seen all this in discovery. Sounds highly incriminating, shit nobody can claim is protected under the duties of the President, sounds like just maybe there will be very bad information about Trump's actions that day coming out right before the election.

Delay, delay, delay is what Trump/lawyers wanted. Too bad, that's what they got.

Trump's/lawyers defense will be the accused (Trump) has a right to face his accusers (Trump’s social media adviser Dan Scavino, Trump White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and his deputy Pat Philbin, Trump's White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, not to mention former VP Pence).

The Sixth Amentment of the US Constitution says any criminal defendant suspected of committing a crime has the right to confront the witness in a criminal action. Funny part is that Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, a 1987 United States Supreme Court case, found that the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause applies only to trial, and not to pre-trial matters. Generally.

So it would seem that the Sixth Amendment might not save Trump here. A public hearing where Trump lawyers ask questions of Mike Pence and the rest of the witnesses against Trump probably the last thing they would actually want, anyhow lol.

This could be interesting. I sure the fuck hope so.

[sparks]

Besides, it's counter intuitive to 'believe' in science. You can know it works, or not. It still works either way. Or as Dawkins once put it: "Because it (science) WORKS BITCHES!"

I don't think that was Dawkins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rj3rAJUVrGQ

He does make one fuck up in his diatribe, but I'm giving him that because anyone could do it.

[sparks]

2nd year algebra teaches how to find multiple solutions to an equation.
science class is also expanding to allow ya'll back in.
I'm certain none of us knows our ass from a hole in the ground, in regard to the nature of things.
it's all conjecture, so far.
we can describe a universe that is already gone, marginally at that. hardly worth getting all huffy.

I will defend it (the universe) against your onslaught of limitations!

Damn. stanky is in his "I'll just post whatever I can pull out of my ass and call it the truth." phase again.

Enjoy yourself stank. Hope it all turns out good for you.