It's a classic fascist tactic to accuse your opposition of anything you are guilty of. At worst, they muddy the waters and then later claim the term doesn't mean anything so you can't accuse them of it with any validity (which is something this particular racist fascist asshole has done a lot). At beat for them, they get into power and do this 1984 doublethink bullshit where they just declare opposites are true and they wield the power of government to crush you if you are honest about the big brother wearing no clothes. And then they'll claim that the lies they've told and the power they wield to punish people for telling the truth are actually proof that they're right and moral, in a circular logic bullshitstorm.
I'd say that's a cute accusation-confession, except you're not pretending to not understand things. You literally don't understand them.
Your dunning-kruger ignorance means you don't understand what you don't understand. It's so simple to you. Left bad, right good. Laws irrelevant. Everything Trump legal.
I'll again offer a challenge: cite something that Trump has done that angered Democrats (not leftists, because they're not the same thing) that is actually illegal. Do you think Trump has ever done anything he didn't have a legal right to do? Anything?
If you can't think of anything, it should be a giant red flag that you're bootlicking sycophant.
You're wasting hours of your life proving to others who you will never meet that you're a grumpy asshole with no joy in your life except spite for people who are different from you and people you don't understand at all. At what point will you recognize how much of a waste this is? We don't even have to wish you ill. You're doing it to yourself already.
And this is where the slow wheels of justice are a giant pain, because the damage is done regardless of the later declaration of illegality. No subsequent ruling will get that year and a half back. Much of the research won't resume. Without real consequences, bad actors will just do it again.
I love this "I'm not a bigot or an asshole, but also here's how much of a bigoted asshole I can be!" approach. It definitely makes you seem like a perfectly reasonable and compassionate human being. All the incels on 4chan will applaud you in your victory over the snowflakes for this momentous takedown.
The troglodyte epithet is particularly ironic since you're arguing for a conservative traditionalist bigoted perspective for which the term is more apropos.
No, you don’t get to make southern red states gerrymander in blue districts based on race.
"No, you don't get to make [gerrymandered] states [represent their actual demographics]."
The fact that you think so many states are as red as you think is because of past gerrymandering and voter suppression.
It's like arguing in 1941 that all Jewish German citizens approved of Hitler after Jewish Germans were stripped of their citizenship.
"I don't hear anyone complaining..." declared the deaf man.
Most of your ideas are bad.
The amount of times you accuse-confess with these trite declarations is uncanny.
Nah, too many Native American tribes there, who don't deserve to be neighbors with those assholes. Send them to Russia where they think they'd be in like company.
"I'm not racist!" screams the guy who posts a blog link comment section full of mask-off white robed racists burning virtual crosses on the lawn of the only sitting justice on the Supreme Court with experience as a public defender and with more trial court experience than anyone else.
You're telling on yourself so much here by indicating the propaganda you consume. This proves why you don't like to cite your sources. You know a steaming pile of toxic waste bullshit isn't a good citation.
Again, you have severe reading comprehension issues, no understanding of nuance, and you argue with strawmen, which makes the ferocity and eagerness with which you engage your favorite slur even more stupid.
That they were invited and only the conservative justices went doesn't refute the statement you responded to. It actually emphasizes the point being made.
You're like a guy who never learned how to read criticizing people who enjoy books because you don't think there's anything in them. "All these r-words just look at pages of bad little drawings!"
The other truth that keeps getting said about this sort of thing is that a website having to shut down or block users is a feature not a bug. Utahn legislators aren't interested in making sure the targeted websites can still operate.
Typical person making unproven statement here, ladies and gentlemen. They're probably also a [insert your rival sports team here] fan and they also [do something you find annoying].
Note the strawman you're fighting with. I didn't say anything about a majority minority district. We're talking about conservatives redrawing districts with racist intent (because statistically and demographically that gives them an advantage). You can dilute minority votes in redistricting even if there aren't enough to make them a majority in a district. And you keep pretending it requires someone to admit they're being racist for it to be racist. Even if you weren't intentionally choosing distributions based on race and ethnicity, if your results dilute their representation disproportionately, then it's still systemically racist regardless of intent.
You don't actually know what you're talking about and the smugness with which you declare others stupid only says anything about you.
This feels like Robert E. Lee telling slaves that they shouldn't criticize him for fighting the North so hard in order to preserve the "right" of slaveholders to enslave them.
It's an inherently patronizing and blatantly bullshit take. He also seems to think unpopular just means "people don't like it" rather than "it's actually an unconstitutional power grab."
I'd explain it, but the comments don't allow for a script that loads a completely different explanation every time you glance at it or respond to it, whatever serves the argument in the moment.
there is basically no one to be “racist” against in South Dakota.
"It's okay to be racist if you're only racist towards a few people..." is a weird argument to make.
Also, about 180,000 non-white residents in the state is a lot of people, so "basically no one" is the bigot math we expect from you. You're literally erasing people of color here. This is an act of racism. But continue to tell us you're not racist. "I didn't say the n-word so it's not true!"
Everyone has a right to be armed.
Not according to the law, no. Toddlers? Convicted criminals?
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
Noted gun nut Antonin Scalia, DC v Heller
Ergo, you have to check who is a citizen.
Read the article. It literally covers the issues relating to checking. Who decides what is valid proof? Racists like you?
Or you could use a different player and not relate these weird hacker fan fiction stories.
It's a classic fascist tactic to accuse your opposition of anything you are guilty of. At worst, they muddy the waters and then later claim the term doesn't mean anything so you can't accuse them of it with any validity (which is something this particular racist fascist asshole has done a lot). At beat for them, they get into power and do this 1984 doublethink bullshit where they just declare opposites are true and they wield the power of government to crush you if you are honest about the big brother wearing no clothes. And then they'll claim that the lies they've told and the power they wield to punish people for telling the truth are actually proof that they're right and moral, in a circular logic bullshitstorm.
I'd say that's a cute accusation-confession, except you're not pretending to not understand things. You literally don't understand them. Your dunning-kruger ignorance means you don't understand what you don't understand. It's so simple to you. Left bad, right good. Laws irrelevant. Everything Trump legal. I'll again offer a challenge: cite something that Trump has done that angered Democrats (not leftists, because they're not the same thing) that is actually illegal. Do you think Trump has ever done anything he didn't have a legal right to do? Anything? If you can't think of anything, it should be a giant red flag that you're bootlicking sycophant.
[citations needed]
You're wasting hours of your life proving to others who you will never meet that you're a grumpy asshole with no joy in your life except spite for people who are different from you and people you don't understand at all. At what point will you recognize how much of a waste this is? We don't even have to wish you ill. You're doing it to yourself already.
And this is where the slow wheels of justice are a giant pain, because the damage is done regardless of the later declaration of illegality. No subsequent ruling will get that year and a half back. Much of the research won't resume. Without real consequences, bad actors will just do it again.
I love this "I'm not a bigot or an asshole, but also here's how much of a bigoted asshole I can be!" approach. It definitely makes you seem like a perfectly reasonable and compassionate human being. All the incels on 4chan will applaud you in your victory over the snowflakes for this momentous takedown. The troglodyte epithet is particularly ironic since you're arguing for a conservative traditionalist bigoted perspective for which the term is more apropos.
Nah, too many Native American tribes there, who don't deserve to be neighbors with those assholes. Send them to Russia where they think they'd be in like company.
"I'm not racist!" screams the guy who posts a blog link comment section full of mask-off white robed racists burning virtual crosses on the lawn of the only sitting justice on the Supreme Court with experience as a public defender and with more trial court experience than anyone else. You're telling on yourself so much here by indicating the propaganda you consume. This proves why you don't like to cite your sources. You know a steaming pile of toxic waste bullshit isn't a good citation.
Again, you have severe reading comprehension issues, no understanding of nuance, and you argue with strawmen, which makes the ferocity and eagerness with which you engage your favorite slur even more stupid. That they were invited and only the conservative justices went doesn't refute the statement you responded to. It actually emphasizes the point being made. You're like a guy who never learned how to read criticizing people who enjoy books because you don't think there's anything in them. "All these r-words just look at pages of bad little drawings!"
The other truth that keeps getting said about this sort of thing is that a website having to shut down or block users is a feature not a bug. Utahn legislators aren't interested in making sure the targeted websites can still operate.
Read that section in the greater context of the rest of the bill.
Typical person making unproven statement here, ladies and gentlemen. They're probably also a [insert your rival sports team here] fan and they also [do something you find annoying].
Note the strawman you're fighting with. I didn't say anything about a majority minority district. We're talking about conservatives redrawing districts with racist intent (because statistically and demographically that gives them an advantage). You can dilute minority votes in redistricting even if there aren't enough to make them a majority in a district. And you keep pretending it requires someone to admit they're being racist for it to be racist. Even if you weren't intentionally choosing distributions based on race and ethnicity, if your results dilute their representation disproportionately, then it's still systemically racist regardless of intent. You don't actually know what you're talking about and the smugness with which you declare others stupid only says anything about you.
[insert evergreen "Conservatives are harmful to minors" joke here]
This feels like Robert E. Lee telling slaves that they shouldn't criticize him for fighting the North so hard in order to preserve the "right" of slaveholders to enslave them. It's an inherently patronizing and blatantly bullshit take. He also seems to think unpopular just means "people don't like it" rather than "it's actually an unconstitutional power grab."
I'd explain it, but the comments don't allow for a script that loads a completely different explanation every time you glance at it or respond to it, whatever serves the argument in the moment.
- Noted gun nut Antonin Scalia, DC v Heller
Read the article. It literally covers the issues relating to checking. Who decides what is valid proof? Racists like you? Yep, always will be.If you were president how would you avoid committing human and CONSTITUTIONAL rights violations while applying immigration laws?