-18

“The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition…. It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature…. [T]he evidence produced thus far depicts an almost dystopian scenario.”

[-] VictoriousStalemate@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Are you a female Senator from MA?

[-] VictoriousStalemate@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Just like they faked the Hunter Biden laptop story

[-] VictoriousStalemate@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

He never claimed to be an absolutist. He never planned in allowing things like vioent threats, for example.

And he's right about those terms - they are used as slurs to shut down discussion. It's a quick and easy way to belittle someone and trivialize their argument.

[-] VictoriousStalemate@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Bad example. The cases where businesses could refuse service to a customer were due to religious freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Not liking Trump would not fall under that category. Not sure about the other example though.

In general though, I think this would be fine. As long as this business is not funded or supported by taxpayer money.

[-] VictoriousStalemate@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Lol. It's totally cool when the money comes from George Soris though, right?

[-] VictoriousStalemate@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Wonderful news. Two great legal decisions.

This is why electing Trump was so important. He's just awful, but Hillary's SJC picks would've been a disaster.

[-] VictoriousStalemate@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Lol. It's not "Republican hypocrisy". This action is literally unconstitutional. If Biden wants taxpayers to foot the bill for deadbeats who don't want to pay back their college debt, he needs to get Congress to fund it.

[-] VictoriousStalemate@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I think the PPP program was a mistake too. But since the government basically forced companies to shut down during the pandemic, it seems fitting it should pay for the damages it caused.

The government did not force student to take out student loans. You took out a loan, you pay it back, not the taxpayers. Also, the student loan program would also mostly benefit the wealthy.

Here’s a nice write up: https://reason.com/2022/08/26/no-ppp-doesnt-justify-bidens-student-loan-bailout/

[-] VictoriousStalemate@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

The Roe ruling was garbage and deserved to be overturned. As another poster mentioned, basing it on the right to privacy was a mistake.

And people seem to forget that the question is not whether you support abortion or not. That’s irrelevant. The question was always whether there was a Constitutional right to abortion.

[-] VictoriousStalemate@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Thank goodness. This action was simply forcing debt from the person who accrued it to somebody else.

Biden using the HEROES act to justify this action was bullshit. And the President can’t just allocate billions of dollars for this - this expenditure needs to go through Congress.

Even former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) once said, "People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not. He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress."

[-] VictoriousStalemate@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Another good SCOTUS ruling.

What about the web designers civil rights? It doesn’t seem right to force someone to perform work that is at odds with their religious beliefs.

While I disagree with the web designer, the same-sex couple is free to find another developer.

[-] VictoriousStalemate@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

So long RIF. So long Reddit.

view more: next ›

VictoriousStalemate

joined 1 year ago