None
None
None
None
None
None
16
Is a Trump win better for the UK even if the UK hates him

I don't personally like trump, his approval rate is also like 5% in the UK (as in would you vote for trump/American republicans to kill our free health care etc).

However Biden basically hates us because he thinks he is Irish.

Brexit was a shit idea but it was a Trump aligned idea, we also actually pay above our NATO contributions unlike the euros.

So as much as a loss it might be to soyjacks everywhere, from an economic perspective I suspect the likely Trump win is good for us.

Now let me move to America more easily, why do you have open borders for Mexicans but like 4 skilled British visas available a year.

!britbongs discuss

None

I recently witnessed a significant "family meeting" type discussion in /r/law after the Fanni Willis debacle. Experienced trial attorneys making politically agnostic observations about potential impacts to the case were being down voted into oblivion for the mere act of being politically agnostic and acknowledging even the possibility that Willis could have acted in a way that could negatively impact the case. The adults in the room circled the wagons. The consensus was that any thread that achieves a minimum critical mass of participants will attract partisan non-experts whose interest in facts and reality is secondary to their interest in every situation conforming to their preconceived notions.

r/law used to have high quality legal discussions like three years ago. Now it's r/politics with a thin veneer of “objectivity”

:#marseyglancing:


This post is one of the bad legal takes on this sub that it purports to call out.

“You can think that the stakes are so high here that the justices should depart from textualism and original public meaning to read the phrase more broadly. You can upvote all the people who say Trump should lose”

Just read Baude's extensive paper. Disqualifying trump likely follows the text original intent and original meaning of the 14th amendment. Pretending disqualifying Trump is “progressive” constitutional interpretation is disingenuous and misleading

:#soysnooseethetyping:


This article combined with the Federalist society argument is not a novel “progressive” constitutional theory.

There is ample historical evidence that the president was considered an officer at the time of drafting and ratification.

:#soyjakfattyping:

Yeah, it's hard to take posts like this seriously.

:#soyjakyelltyping:

We are posting in a midwit thread on God

:#zoomersoytyping:

WORDSWORDSWORDS MY SO WORDSWORDSWORDS

:#soyjaktantrumfastgenocidetyping:

!Neolibs, do you think you know more than the supreme court?

None
62
haha yes for The Crown haha

!historychads as true today as it was when it was written

None
None

36 votes lol

And 0 in Missouri

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2024_march_2nd_gop_caucuses.html?title=2024-missouri-gop-caucus&id=13726_P

:#marseyitneverbegan:

None

I have bought so much tinfoil in the past ten days. I will be the tin foil king! None shall stop my conquest of the wasteland!

None
8
T-rumpkeks, it is so over for you.
None

!neolibs

None
None
40
Democrat Senate frontrunner embraces his party's heritage
None
12
None

Grandpa bumbasher is fricking awesome and I would have gay s*x with him

None
None
None
25
FBI coming for dramanaughts

"oi u gotta loicense fer tat meme"

None
None
32
Nate Silver (:marseyhomofascist: :marseygambling:) article gets posted, r/neoliberal reacts cooly and rationally.
None
Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.