Discussion about hot topics trending today

[SoulReaver]

15 dead ruskies? good news I say

Sorry, wrong answer. Even if the Dems do take the Senate, they won't take office till January. Plenty of time to get another nominee through. And after what the Dems have pulled to try to derail Kavanaugh, a completely unprovable accusation from 35 years ago I'm not gonna have no problem if they do it as a lame duck.

then it will behove the (hopefully democratic) government to counteract everything Scotus does: every time the Scotus/Supreme Deep State makes a ruling, the government should pass a law to explicitly negate that ruling

but will they have the decency to do that

Hey, Biden! What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty" ?

it disappeared when Weinstein was charged without any proof

[Chaka-Z0]

So, latest from Syria: four Israeli F16s hit a weapons facility in the port sity of Latakia; the facility was set up by Iran to manufacture precision-guided missiles to be transferred to Hezbollah. Syrian anti-aircraft defenses tried to shoot the Israeli warplanes down but instead destroyed a Russian spy plane with 15 crew on board. The Russians are blaming Israel, claiming that the IAF pilots ever-so-craftily used the Russian spy plane as cover, even though it's completely unrealistic to orchestrate something like that; it is far more likely that the Syrians simply panicked and fired at anything that moved on the radar.

Netanyaou must be laughing his ass off, got 2 birds with one stone.

[Chaka-Z0]

Hey, Biden! What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty" ?

So much for rights, eh?


Joe Biden: Women’s Claims Of Sexual Assault Should Be Presumed To Be True

Innocent until proven guilty unfortunately cannot and should not be applied to sexual assault cases. Don't get me wrong, as I've said before, those that falsely accuse someone of sexual assault should deserve the same sentence. Not to confuse with those that could not prove their accusation, there's a difference.

Victims of sexual assault are already under an incredible stress and suffered trauma, some studies have shown that they pretty much suffer from the same PTSD than war vets. Also in most cases the sexual offender is someone close to the victim, a family member, a friend, etc. making it that much harder to speak out.

If you make it so that every case is dismissed if not supported by evidences (such as DNA, pictures or videos) there will simply be no more denunciation. Most of the time it takes years or decades for the victim to get over their own shame and speak out, which means such a proof (DNA bits) is no longer around. EVERY case needs to be investigated, EVERY case needs to be considered even if it seems like an obvious lie.

Biden is right.

[Annoyed]

then it will behove the (hopefully democratic) government to counteract everything Scotus does: every time the Scotus/Supreme Deep State makes a ruling, the government should pass a law to explicitly negate that ruling
but will they have the decency to do that

That's just why we need another conservative on the court. It can over ride Congress in many cases, or create "law" out of thin air when it doesn't exist.

it disappeared when Weinstein was charged without any proof

Here, you have a point. You shouldn't be able to convict someone without proof.

[Gatefan1976]

So, latest from Syria: four Israeli F16s hit a weapons facility in the port sity of Latakia; the facility was set up by Iran to manufacture precision-guided missiles to be transferred to Hezbollah. Syrian anti-aircraft defenses tried to shoot the Israeli warplanes down but instead destroyed a Russian spy plane with 15 crew on board. The Russians are blaming Israel, claiming that the IAF pilots ever-so-craftily used the Russian spy plane as cover, even though it's completely unrealistic to orchestrate something like that; it is far more likely that the Syrians simply panicked and fired at anything that moved on the radar.

Now that's some real fake news.
How anyone could see that as the IAF's fault or intent is mind-blowingly stupid.

[Chaka-Z0]

Now that's some real fake news.
How anyone could see that as the IAF's fault or intent is mind-blowingly stupid.

Just watch the flow of fake news from Russia that's going to blame em for it.

[Womble]

Netanyaou must be laughing his ass off, got 2 birds with one stone.

Not really laughing, no. Russia is furious and might lash out and do a lot of damage, Israel has actually already apologized for not informing Russia in advance, although they did not accept the blame for the incident itself.

It's a massive embarrassment for Russia because it is one of those moments when Russia's big bluff got exposed. Just as they were holding the biggest military drill in decades to show off their terrifying military might, it is revealed that:

Much-feared Russian-supplied air defenses still can't deal with non-stealth 4th generation fighter jets.

Russian Air Force's friend-foe identification system doesn't work.

Target recognition capabilities of Russian-built air-to-air missile systems are a joke.

Russia's most advanced electronic intelligence plane is still the ancient IL 20M. For the younger people, it was the turboprop marvel that took Brussels World Fair Grand Prix in 1958.

Russia's most advanced electronic intelligence plane (one of whose primary functions is electronic jamming) cannot jam missiles aimed at itself.

To top it all I'm seeing quite a lot of speculation from normally reliable sources that the Syrians are not actually trained to operate air-to-air missile batteries and it's the Russian "military advisors" doing the actual shooting. If true (and it might be; in 1973 Egyptian anti-aircraft defenses were operated by 20 0000 Russian "advisors" under very similar scenario), the whole thing completely discredits the Russian military.

[Womble]

Now that's some real fake news.
How anyone could see that as the IAF's fault or intent is mind-blowingly stupid.

Oh, you know, the Syrian wanted to punch the Jew but hit the Russian instead. The Jew is to blame - why did he move his face away so fast?

[Gatefan1976]

Oh, you know, the Syrian wanted to punch the Jew but hit the Russian instead. The Jew is to blame - why did he move his face away so fast?

OH MY GOD!!
they are defending themselves somehow!!!

[SoulReaver]

That's just why we need another conservative on the court. It can over ride Congress in many cases, or create "law" out of thin air when it doesn't exist.

on the contrary a conservative SCOTUS/SDS (Supreme Deep State) is why a Democratic congress is needed so it can pass laws precisely to negate any ruling by the SDS

SDS creates a "law"? Congress/Senate passes a real law to annul it

ps. I'm assuming the congress has more power than the SDS else it's a travesty of democracy (congressmen are elected by the People & have limited terms, SDS judges are not elected & have lifetime terms so common sense says that in a dmeocracy those elected should be able to override any decision by those not elected but tbh I'm not sure how your 'democracy' works exactly)

Here, you have a point. You shouldn't be able to convict someone without proof.

shouldn't even be able to charge them in the first place. investigate first, then charge & indict if proof

[Annoyed]

on the contrary a conservative SCOTUS/SDS (Supreme Deep State) is why a Democratic congress is needed so it can pass laws precisely to negate any ruling by the SDS

SDS creates a "law"? Congress/Senate passes a real law to annul it

ps. I'm assuming the congress has more power than the SDS else it's a travesty of democracy (congressmen are elected by the People & have limited terms, SDS judges are not elected & have lifetime terms so common sense says that in a dmeocracy those elected should be able to override any decision by those not elected but tbh I'm not sure how your 'democracy' works exactly)

That's a misunderstanding on your part. By far, the most powerful branch of the govt. here is the court.

As just one example, and this doesn't even involve the SCOTUS.

Not once, but twice, voters at the ballot box in California rejected proposed amendments to their constitution that recognized same sex marriages.

Not once, but twice, gay/lesbian lobbies took the case to the courts in that state, and both times, the courts overrode the will of the people, as expressed at the ballot box.

At various times, activist judges have thwarted the will of the voters, the congress and the constitution, usually, but not always favoring the left.

That's one of the reasons I want a conservative, originalist court, so that it just interprets the laws as written, not creating new ones, or invalidating existing law.

[SoulReaver]

That's a misunderstanding on your part. By far, the most powerful branch of the govt. here is the court.

As just one example, and this doesn't even involve the SCOTUS.

Not once, but twice, voters at the ballot box in California rejected proposed amendments to their constitution that recognized same sex marriages.

Not once, but twice, gay/lesbian lobbies took the case to the courts in that state, and both times, the courts overrode the will of the people, as expressed at the ballot box.

At various times, activist judges have thwarted the will of the voters, the congress and the constitution, usually, but not always favoring the left.

That's one of the reasons I want a conservative, originalist court, so that it just interprets the laws as written, not creating new ones, or invalidating existing law.

you're talking about amendments. I meant just good old fashioned laws

for instance suppose the Supreme Deep State decides to make inroads in the 1st amendment by ruling that you can be thrown in jail for criticizing Government, on grounds of 'internal security' or what not (a very likely contingency very soon) and suppose the Congress passes a law that explicitly states that you can speak up legally against Government & cannot be criminalized for that, who will prevail?

[Chaka-Z0]

you're talking about amendments. I meant just good old fashioned laws

for instance suppose the Supreme Deep State decides to make inroads in the 1st amendment by ruling that you can be thrown in jail for criticizing Government, on grounds of 'internal security' or what not (a very likely contingency very soon) and suppose the Congress passes a law that explicitly states that you can speak up legally against Government & cannot be criminalized for that, who will prevail?

Ultimately the Supreme Court has the final word and would rule on the matter I believe,, which is why having impartial judges is so important. Usually in most countries though it is very, very rare that the SC will rule against the standing Govt.

[Annoyed]

you're talking about amendments. I meant just good old fashioned laws

for instance suppose the Supreme Deep State decides to make inroads in the 1st amendment by ruling that you can be thrown in jail for criticizing Government, on grounds of 'internal security' or what not (a very likely contingency very soon) and suppose the Congress passes a law that explicitly states that you can speak up legally against Government & cannot be criminalized for that, who will prevail?

I am not just talking about amendments; the courts have jurisdiction over legislative actions as well.
In your case, the courts would rule on that. Which way the court would rule would depend upon the justices. An originalist court would go with the Constitution, and that law would be struck down. An activist court, on the other hand, may do otherwise.

[SoulReaver]

In your case, the courts would rule on that

then it's a fascist ****hole plain & simple

non-elected officials overruling elected officials, no better than fascism

what's the point of voting for congressmen or senators if the Supreme Deep State can override the legislature

the only option would be for states to secede so they're no longer bound to the SDS. admittedly I wouldn't mind now seeing that country split into myriads of individual states it's the best thing that can happen to it now I say