Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Hannibal]

A brief list of the issues that will likely be fought in the courts over the next decade:

1. "Diversity" quotas, and further sanctioning and legalization of anti-white discrimination in public institutions. This has always happened, but now they are getting even more brazen about it. This will eventually extend into criminal punishment for violence committed against white people, which will become increasingly encouraged by Democrat politicians and the media.

2.. The right to bear arms in self defense, which is under assault in places like Wisconsin, where a 17 year old kid is rotting in jail for shooting three violent goon in self defense (the video evidence shows that he is innocent without anything remotely resembling a reasonable doubt, yet he is still facing first degree murder charges). This also includes the very important grey area of citizens acting as a militia when Democrat politicians purposely neuter law enforcement and let violent mobs run free.

3. The right to not have your daughter change clothes for her volleyball game in the same room as a boy/man who claims "my anatomy doesn't match my gender". Expect the legality of sex-segregated facilities of all kinds to come under fire over the next decade. RBG herself supported drafting women into the army and integrating prisons and the loony kook left will continue their push for this insanity.

4. The right of police to use deadly force to disable or kill violent drug-addled felons. Two Atlanta police officers are currently in the lynching queue for shooting a violent felon after a struggle (100% initiated by the felon) after he stole their taser and fired it at them.

5. The legality of unregulated monopolies like Google and Twitter to censor free speech.

6. Cash bail and the right of all violent criminals to be immediately released onto the streets after their arrest.

That is just a small sampling. The Right needs to win on every single one of these issues.

I didn't throw in Roe v. Wade, but if that worries you, realize that no Supreme Court decision will make abortion illegal in all 50 states. It will just mean that red states can ban it. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, most people will still live in a state where it is legal.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Stocks *slightly* tanking/ giving back the big gains from August. Ruh roh.




If Trump wants to troll everyone, the nomination would be Garland.
I'm interested to see how the Ds would react... Trump could even use it as a positive talking point during the debate.

It won't be though. Amy Coney Barrett will be announced on Friday I bet.

Some people already think Barrett will be announced in the next 48 hours

Stock market is the result of lots of unrelated bad news

* The UK is talking about going into shutdown again. All the Euro markets are in the shitter
* The Supreme Court fight likely kills chances of a new stimulus bill (but hopes spring eternal)
* Report out showing a bunch of huge banks have probably been helping move illicit money for decades

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/21/deutsche-bank-jpmorgan-lead-drop-in-financial-shares-amid-report-the-banks-moved-suspicious-funds.html

[Hannibal]

There's a total zero chance Garland gets nominated. PDJT will probably nominate ACB, and she'd be an outstanding justice. And the Ds will, once again, show how they only care about women or minorities if those women and minorities are Ds.

Well to be fair, Joe Biden has promised to nominate a black woman!

I'll see your gender identity politics and raise you a minority!

[iam416]

1. "Diversity" quotas, and further sanctioning and legalization of anti-white discrimination in public institutions. This has always happened, but now they are getting even more brazen about it.

I'm not so sure much is going to change in this area.

2.. The right to bear arms in self defense, which is under assault in places like Wisconsin, where a 17 year old kid is rotting in jail for shooting three violent goon in self defense (the video evidence shows that he is innocent without anything remotely resembling a reasonable doubt, yet he is still facing first degree murder charges). This also includes the very important grey area of citizens acting as a militia when Democrat politicians purposely neuter law enforcement and refuse to enforce laws.

The will absolutely overturn Heller

3. The right to not have your daughter change clothes for her volleyball game in the same room as a boy/man who claims "my anatomy doesn't match my gender". Expect the legality of sex-segregated facilities of all kinds to come under fire over the next decade. RBG herself supported drafting women into the army and integrating prisons and the loony kook left will continue their push for this insanity.

Fundamentally, this was decided last term with the preposterous literalism from Roberts.

4. The right of police to use deadly force to disable or kill violent drug-addled felons. Two police officers are currently

This is fundamentally a state law issue. There is nothing Constitutional about it.

5. The legality of unregulated monopolies like Google and Twitter to censor free speech.

For reasons we've discussed, this would be the most interesting case. I'm not sure it has enough legs to ever be an issue the SCt takes up (by that, I mean, I don't think you'll ever get to First Amendment issues w/ these guys; maybe antitrust -- but that's FTC issue first and foremost).

The obvious 6th is Citizens United. That'll get undone in a white hot minute.

[iam416]

Well to be fair, Joe Biden has promised to nominate a black woman!

Why not go for black queer woman? Eh, whatever. The Ds judge a person's ability on their sex and race. Is what it is.

[Hannibal]

Why not go for black queer woman? Eh, whatever. The Ds judge a person's ability on their sex and race. Is what it is.

Why not go for a transgender woman of color? Don't be a cis bigot!

[iam416]

I will say that there are a couple of close Senate races where I think this issue probably helps the Rs. I know DSL posted polls that show the Ds win on the Supreme Court and every single issue in nearly every single state. Great. But, IMO, it helps in Montana and Iowa for sure, and maybe NC. I would be running ads left and right about how those Ds are going to rubber stamp a wildly left justice. And that's absolutley true.

[Hannibal]

I wouldn't trust any poll taken before RBG's body was even cold. Most people polled probably have no idea what the USSC actually does or has been doing. There's time to educate people on this issue and change minds.

If BLM's approval rating in Wisconsin can plummet 25% in a couple of months despite a megalith of big tech, big sports, and media endlessly campaigning for them, then there's room to change minds on judges with the help of a little leadership.

[Hannibal]

I'm not so sure much is going to change in this area.

California just legalized racial discrimination. And I guarantee you they did it to discriminate against white people.

There is absolutely much room for things to change in this area, and not for the better.

For reasons we've discussed, this would be the most interesting case. I'm not sure it has enough legs to ever be an issue the SCt takes up (by that, I mean, I don't think you'll ever get to First Amendment issues w/ these guys; maybe antitrust -- but that's FTC issue first and foremost).

I dunno. I think that there are some legal, non-FTC approaches to this. For instance, if somebody devotes four years building their living off of your platform with the expectations that you are going to enforce your terms of service fairly, and then you throw out the TOS when you kick them off (e.g. every Conservative who has been banned off of youtube or Twitter in the past three years). There is a long, long list of Conservatives who have been deplatformed without cause. Some of them have even been banned from using the banking system.

It would be like if your gas company shut off service to your workplace because they don't like your politics. I assume that you could legally challenge this, no?

[Dr. Strangelove]

I will say that there are a couple of close Senate races where I think this issue probably helps the Rs. I know DSL posted polls that show the Ds win on the Supreme Court and every single issue in nearly every single state. Great. But, IMO, it helps in Montana and Iowa for sure, and maybe NC. I would be running ads left and right about how those Ds are going to rubber stamp a wildly left justice. And that's absolutley true.

I remain skeptical as to how much this helps Republicans because I am skeptical that anyone who is motivated to vote by a Supreme Court fight was going to stay home this election. By and large those people were already voting Republican.

You might hate polls but Pew did an interesting study last year on religion in America and 56-37 Montana was in favor of abortion remaining legal in most cases. It was nearly a 50-50 split in Iowa. Same for NC. Montana conservatives I think tend to be more of a libertarian bent. It's interesting that in Montana a slight majority believe govt aid to the poor does more harm than good and in Iowa/NC a slight majority see aid to the poor as more good than harm. So if you'd want to rally Montanans around a conservative justice, I would tend to think you should play up the non-intervention in the economy side more than social issue stuff. Same is true of Alaska, btw.

https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/state/montana/

https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/state/montana/

[iam416]

California just legalized racial discrimination. And I guarantee you they did it to discriminate against white people.

California was repealing an Amendment that forbade the State from considering race. They weren't able to use it as a "plus factor" or whatever the "diversity" rationale nonsense is. So, UC Universities are grossly "overrepresented" by Asian-Americans (to the extent "overrepresented" doesn't mean merit). What California is doing is getting rid of law that actually stopped them from doing what most other states already can do.

The far more interesting case is the Asians v Harvard case that is, at its core, asking whether demograpic distrubutions that are nearly uniform year after year is evidence of improper use of race. Quotas and demographic-mirroring aren't kosher. So, perhaps that will change.

Lord knows that THE Fundamental tenet of the Democratic Party is Outcome Equality, Merit be Damned. In fact, they've gone so far as to consider phrases like "best person for the job" and "on their own merits" as microaggressions that will, of course, soon become unquestioned proof that you're a racist. That's the D.

[Hannibal]

Talent -- if the state that just decriminalized the spread of AIDS has just legalized racial discrimination, I guarantee you that the purpose was to weaponize "diversity" against white people.

[iam416]

No one thinks the Supreme Court is going to overturn Roe except for crazy folks on the left. I mean, they just followed precdent in declaring a restrictive Louisiana law unconstitional. Toobin can only write so many OH GAWD articles that prove entirely and completely wrong.

I guarantee you they will overturn Heller. GUARANTEE. Now, I don't have a poll in front of me as to what Montana voters think about gun rights. But, I have my guesses.

[Hannibal]

Yeah the USSC won't overturn Roe v. Wade. And like I said, even if they do, abortion will remain legal in most states. No state that has voted Democrat in the past 30 years will ban it. I believe the polls that show that most people think that it should at least be legal in the first trimester. It gets muddier after that.

[iam416]

Talent -- if the state that just decriminalized the spread of AIDS has just legalized racial discrimination, I guarantee you that the purpose was to weaponize "diversity" against white people.

I don't know what California is going to do. I can only tell you this was primarily a University admissions issue and it will absolutely crush Asian-Americans. White folks are still represented at the UC schools in roughly their population proporiton, which is all that matters. But Asians are upwards of 50% of all students. So, what California wants to do is to deny those high-achieving Asians a spot in the prestigous UC system so that they can "uplift" AAs w/ unquestionably lower qualifications.

That's the D party. In the great Progressive race/gender/sexual identity hiearchy, AAs >>>>>>>>> Asians. That's what every D supports. With fervor, I might add.