u/Blyndwolf
Blyndwolf
Blyndwolf
Wtf was Ramsey thinking not just running the ball over
Blyndwolf
My wife raw dogged me on a subway car. It'll be 10 years this December.
Blyndwolf
After Dobbs, why do we care about anything the federal government has to say about abortion?
Blyndwolf
You asked for the name of one republican. Why would I name a Democrat when you are asking for a Republican?
Blyndwolf
I don't have a point. You said name 1.
Blyndwolf
Illegal entry is a federal misdemeanor. It is a crime. See 8 usc 1335(a). Civil penalties may also be imposed in addition to the criminal penalties. See 8 usc 1325(b).
I don't support the ICE raids, but we can't spread false information. Just because they lie doesn't mean we have to.
Blyndwolf
Video is private
Blyndwolf
They just signed a deal with Grok, which was literally manipulated, as publicly acknowledged by its owner, to be biased. I guess they have to cancel that contract. 🤷🏼♂️
Blyndwolf
Pls no.
Blyndwolf
Yes, but you would have been in that same spot for that same duration had heaven's fury shown the full animation. You take damage during heaven's fury, so you would have taken the exact same amount of damage regardless of Iggy using stasis.
Edit: to be clear, I'm not denying there is a glitch with the HF and stasis interaction. I'm denying that the glitch is the reason you died.
But looking at it closer now, it might have been longer than the animation of HF. Either way, needs to be fixed.
Blyndwolf
It looks like the glitch is just that it didn't show the animation of heaven's fury. Heaven's fury has a duration. I'm not aware of any abilities that knock her out of heaven's fury before the animation completes (please correct me if I'm wrong). You would have been locked in that position even if he didn't use stasis, and you would have taken all the same damage.
Blyndwolf
/u/grapedrinkbox says
You wouldn't like to be educated because you're already a brainwashed idiot.
I'm still waiting, dude. Show me a single instance of Biden illegally removing someone. Literally just one.
Try arguing facts instead of ad hominem.
Blyndwolf
People weren't up in arms because the Biden administration wasn't using masked gestapo who ended up arresting US citizens. People weren't up in arms because Biden wasn't shipping people to locations that they had specific court orders to prevent removal to.
It is the methods they are using that people are protesting, not simply the removal.
It wasn't being recorded because masked vigilantes weren't just disappearing people off the streets without warrants and without verifying who they are. It's not about the deportation. It's about how they are doing it. Violently and without due process.
I'd be happy to be educated about all the times the Biden administration illegally deported people to a foreign prison without proving they were even subject to deportation, or how Biden was arresting college students because he didn't like an OpEd they wrote. I'll wait.
Blyndwolf
If correcting false claims that the election was stolen is arguing, then I guess there is a need to argue.
Blyndwolf
I'm not arguing. I'm fact checking you.
Blyndwolf
That's not all you are saying. You literally said the election was stolen.
There may have been shady stuff going on, but none of it was to the level that would have changed the outcome of the election. None of it stood up to scrutiny in court. You keep saying, "look bro" when the court has looked dozens of times, and not a single one found any fraud to the level Trump claims.
Absentee ballots were being counted until 3am, and then they were reported.
Yes, there were illegal votes cast under the names of dead people, like the Nevada man who voted for Trump in his dead wife's name, lied about it to fan the election conspiracy flames and then got caught and was convicted. Or the Pennsylvania man who was convicted for voting for Trump in his dead mother's name. Or the Ohio government official who voted for Trump under his dead father's name.
And that's how I know the system is working. People who tried to cheat got caught. The state went to court with evidence and got convictions. Trump went to court with baseless claims and got laughed out of the courtroom.
Inperson voting only.
That disenfranchises all military and federal employees stationed overseas.
No illegals
They already can't vote. Even legally resident non-citizens cannot vote.
Blyndwolf
Then youll agree we need photo ID and rigid auditing.
The logic doesn't follow. There was no photo ID requirement in the 2020 election, and it was secure, as concluded by dozens of lawsuits. Why change the requirements, when the current requirements kept the election secure?
Just because Trump lied and tried to overturn the election, that doesn't mean we need to change the current election security laws, when elections are currently secure, and the courts are preventing frivolous attempts to overturn fair elections.
might as well call ALL elections stolen
That's Trump's playbook. Don't act like it would be what starts happening if we don't has voter suppression laws. He was calling for fraud in the 2024 election before the election even happened. He's always the victim but never the problem.
we should always vote against the one that doesnt.
That's ridiculous rhetoric. If the party that wants voter ID also wants to murder people with different ideologies, you don't vote for the murderers.
Blyndwolf
Over 60 lawsuits. Half dismissed for failing to bring any legitimate evidence. Every suit that has been decided on the merits has found no voter fraud. The only lawsuit Trump has won regarding the 2020 election was an election board issue and had zero bearing on the vote count in that county.
It wasn't stolen. If you still believe anything out of Trump's mouth, you have turned your critical thinking off.
Blyndwolf
Where was these protests when biden was elected?
Did you forget about Jan 6?
Blyndwolf
The supreme court also ruled that judges dont have the authority to make the trump administration or any other administration make decisions on international relations
It made no such ruling. The entire legally relevant part of the SCOTUS ruling is:
"The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.
Those are literally the only words that have any legal authority. The rest of the order is procedural review and a non-binding statement by some of the justices supporting the order.
Notice that facilitate applies to his "release from custody", not just his return to the US.
The only thing SCOTUS said was that they should pay deference to the executive branch with respect to the term 'effectuate'. On remand, the district court judge just struck "effectuate" from her order. So now, SCOTUS agrees that "The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador."
The limitation on effectuate was to prevent the argument that the US had to invade a sovereign nation to physically retrieve him. Yes, the court cannot order that. But the court can certainly order that the president, who is currently paying El Salvador to house this individual, to pick up the phone and at the very least ask for him back. Trump admitted that he could do that if he wanted, but he blames his lawyers telling him not to. (Side note: he also stated that he doesn't know if he is obligated to uphold the constitution, despite taking an oath to do so). We apparently have such a chummy relationship with El Salvador that we can pay them to house our prisoners, but we aren't chummy enough to ask for a prisoner that we didn't mean to send there back. It's ridiculous.
US Virgin Islands