What an idiot.
3 Likes
Innumeracy here. The profanity count doesnât seem to match what was posted here (that is there was âprofanityâ, not âprofanitiesâ).
I think the idea is that âfuckingâ and âdipshitâ are profanities, though I could also see the argument that dipshit is really a slur and so the proper description should be a profanity and slurs.
My degree is in mathematics, though. Maybe we should post this in the thread for grammar experts for an official ruling.
3 Likes
IFYP
Karine Jean-Pierre on the Dobbs decision:
From day one when the Supreme Court made this extreme decision to take away a constitutional right, it was an unconstitutional action by themâŚ
Bonus Ann Coulter commenting on it as only Ann Coulter can.
They both sound like idiots.
Is Jean-Pierre a US citizen? (Do you have to be to get that job?) If she is, that makes Coulterâs statement exceptionally dumb. But itâs pretty darn dumb regardless, seeing as how she moved to the US when she was 5 years old.
Which island was Alexander Hamilton from again?
1 Like
According to this she is
1 Like
I donât think Coulter is a Democrat and sheâs the only one who said something stupid in your post. The Theocratic Court attacked multiple rights in the last session of rulings striping away and or rolling back numerous settled constitutional rights and overturning precedent in the process, often using spun whole cloth to do so.
3 Likes
Is that strictly relevant to being labeled a foreigner?
Yes
Residence helps too.
2 Likes
âPerson from another countryâ is an accepted definition of the word âforeignerâ in the English language and citizenship is not relevant to be labeled one in that sense. I rate your post as: false. This forum seems to have a peculiar lack of understanding of the English language. Coulter likes to stir the pot but sheâs not wrong here.
If a person is a US citizen and has resided in the United States for the last 42 years, I donât consider them a foreigner but YMMV.
1 Like
It is âanâ accepted definition, but not the best for this context.
The first one here is better:
Eh, for better or worse their job is interpreting what the constitution means. You may think they made a mistake, but itâs hardly unconstitutional for them to do so.
And there is no requirement the precedent be followed. If there was, Plessy would be the law of the land.
A couple of your links have better options too
2. One who is from outside a particular group or community; an outsider
So back on Biden and the insane rhetoric about Georgiaâs election law. The rhetoric was really intense, Biden called it âJim Crow 2.0â and âJim Crow on steroids,â and he also made some strange kind of Big Lie references:
The goal of the former president and his allies is to disenfranchise anyone who votes against them. Simple as that. The facts wonât matter. Your vote wonât matter. Theyâll just decide what they want, and then do it. Thatâs the kind of power you see in totalitarian states. Not in democracies,
Hyperbole aside, posters here and others had concerns about cutting back early voting hours and the general concerns about voter suppression. But Georgia had a primary this year with record early voting turnout according to their SoS:
Short lines, smooth easy ballot access, and confidence in ballot security brought out more than 850,000 to cast a ballot in person or return an absentee ballot. Compared early-voting turnout in recent primaries, this represented a 168 percent increase over the 2018, the last gubernatorial primary and a 212 percent jump above 2020, the last presidential primary year.
âThe record early voting turnout is a testament to the security of the voting system and the hard work of our county election officials,â said Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger. âThe incredible turnout we have seen demonstrates once and for all that Georgiaâs Election Integrity Act struck a good balance between the guardrails of access and security.â
Now Iâm not saying this conclusively proves the concerns to be unfounded, but it certainly doesnât look like Jim Crow on steroids like Biden says. Maybe evaluation of the law in a hypothetical sense was a little inaccurate to the reality?
Is this thread becoming meta?
The constitution can mean whatever you want it to mean. This guy has a political agenda.
2 Likes
As long as you can convince at least four specific other people to agree with you.
1 Like
Are you alleging something amiss with the courtâs opinion in Dobbs? Or just in Thomasâ concurrence?