ChiGoose

I do think those things are bad. Not sure why people are insistent on strawman arguments but I guess it's easier than actually addressing facts...

I’ve worked in the white collar corporate world for a while and have done a good amount of DEI training / events. It was boring at worst and enlightening at best. I really don’t understand what the big deal is.

nah, you could pass legislation that fixed the issues we are seeing but that would result in more legal immigration, which is a non-starter for the hard right.

Ah. I thought you might have been on hallucinogens. Instead, you may actually have brain damage.

Man, I gotta get my hands on whatever you are smoking.

Congress is quite clearly not doing its job. The immigration system and enforcement is woefully broken and requires Congress to act. They won’t, so it’ll continue to be broken.

Is complete ignorance of the law a requirement for people who rant about immigration?

Ignorance is understandable. The vast majority of the electorate is fairly ignorant of what is going on because they don’t have the time or desire to follow it all. It’s helpful to remember that anybody discussing politics on a message board is a weirdo and not representative of America as a whole. However, willful ignorance is inexcusable and shameful. People spending all of their time consuming politics and still believing absolute BS are worthy of scorn and disdain.

Anyone who still believes that the only thing that happened on January 6th (and the lead up to that day) was a protest is just proclaiming their ignorance and that they have totally wrapped themselves into a narrative cocoon that prevents anything that contradicts their preferred narrative from reaching their eyes. They are frankly too stupid to engage with. There is no point. It’s like trying to explain math to someone who believes 1+1=banana

He’s gonna need some time to download the latest talking points from TheFederalistPJMediaRedStateTotallyUnbiasedNewsButDemsAreBadDotCom.

Yeah, who needs qualifications? Just ignore the constitution and the rules if the people demand it.

(Citation needed)

There’s a difference between being a sore loser and orchestrating a multi-state plot to have fake electors certified by Congress in order to overturn the results.

“Just because he tried to remain in power after losing an election before doesn’t mean he’s the kind of guy who will try to remain in power illegitimately.” Also, all of these conspiracies about the DNC having some secret plan to remove Biden are absolutely hilarious to anyone who has seen the unending stream of DNC incompetence over the years. If Biden wants to be the nominee, he will be the nominee.

If there was no due process, it wouldn’t be in the courts… How do you think it should work when a candidate is potentially ineligible?

The fun part of Orginalism is that you get to pick the outcome you want, find one example from the past that supports it, and then override everything and anything that contradicts it.

Oh no, an accusation is definitely not enough. You’re right on point with the claims about Obama. What happens if a presidential candidate is potentially ineligible under the constitution? Generally, some party will sue their state to remove the candidate from the ballot. Maybe they aren’t 35. Maybe they were born in Panama. Maybe they are Jefferson Davis in disguise. The legal process will then play out to adjudicate the claims. Frivolous nonsense will get dismissed. More serious claims may make it farther along. This particular issue has been in the courts in several states. This is the only time in which one of those courts has found in favor of the plaintiffs. Lol. You know absolutely nothing and love to show it. ***** moron.

He was not found guilty of a crime. Being found guilty of a crime isn’t a requirement.

This is obviously wrong but things that are obviously wrong are easily believable for conservatives these days.

At a cursory glance it seems pretty spot on, but I agree that the chances of SCOTUS upholding it are pretty remote. I’m a bit conflicted because I believe it’s: 1. Correct on the facts and law 2. Unlikely to be upheld by SCOTUS (though this is far from certain) 3. Great in the short term if it’s upheld 4. Bad in the long run if it’s upheld

Quick note that this ruling is stayed until Jan 4th, 2024 to allow time for appeals.

Look, I’m sure that the people currently defending Thomas would absolutely defend any liberal justice facing the same facts. /s

Billsy was right that much of the data was not verified to be from Hunter Also, that there was data added *after* Hunter lost possession of the laptop just as shady actors like Rudy were shopping it around to try to claim that Joe Biden was involved (despite lack of any serious evidence) means that the info the laptop should be treated with a heavy dose of skepticism. Originally, I had been concerned that someone might create fake business records regarding Joe, but given what we’ve seen from those leading the impeachment effort, they are probably far too dumb to pull that off.

I believe that Hunter was a drug addict who hired prostitutes and traded on his dad’s name. Even though he seems to have mostly cleaned up his act, I will not be voting for Hunter Biden for president next year.

The laptop was Hunter’s. The original data on it was Hunter’s. When he left it at the repair shop, the hard drive was imaged. That is, a copy of the laptop’s contents were made on a separate device. Since then, multiple analysts have looked at some of the copies that were being shopped around to break this story. Some of them had files created and modified *after* the laptop was left at the repair shop and had left Hunter’s custody. I believe that one of the versions shopped around by Rudy had this issue. Depending on the copy and analysis conducted, significant chunks of the data could not be verified to have been created by Hunter. This does not mean it wasn’t Hunter’s laptop (it was) and that much of the content wasn’t his (much of it is), but it does mean that shady people are falsifying data and claiming it was Hunter’s when it wasn’t. But skepticism isn’t allowed for conservatives, so anyone even pointing this out gets criticized for saying things they never actually said. To be a true Republican, you must buy the company line regardless of the facts.