So, is the SCOTUS Looking to Destroy the Country….

[_lost_username_]

On 4/26/2024 at 1:21 PM, katt_goddess said:

If the founders had wanted presidential immunity to be forever and all-inclusive, they wouldn't have written into the Constitution how to go about IMPEACHING a president.

The Constitution was written at a time where personal honor was something people lived and died (even killed) by. For many of them, I think it was inconceivable that someone like Trump would make it to the heights he has. That culture has pretty much died but the Constitution hasn't changed to reflect that. If politicians of today challenged people to duels over infringements on their honor, we'd be having special elections every other week. 

[discolé monade]

2 hours ago, ZoomBubba said:

The Constitution was written at a time where personal honor was something people lived and died (even killed) by. For many of them, I think it was inconceivable that someone like Trump would make it to the heights he has. That culture has pretty much died but the Constitution hasn't changed to reflect that. If politicians of today challenged people to duels over infringements on their honor, we'd be having special elections every other week. 

but think of the ratings for which outlet got to air that live. 

 

[_lost_username_]

26 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

but think of the ratings for which outlet got to air that live. 

 

If they could actually be challenged to a duel, I doubt most of the GOP would bother to be there. I'm kind of surprised that people still show up to vote for guys who've had their wives, parents and children insulted by Trump but still snivel and grovel about he's the greatest thing since flushable toilets.

[Top Gun]

18 hours ago, discolé monade said:

but think of the ratings for which outlet got to air that live. 

 

C-SPAN gonna be lit.

[discolé monade]

5 hours ago, Top Gun said:

C-SPAN gonna be lit.

[1pooh4u]

SCOTUS overturned a Trump era ban on the bump stock. Idk exactly what these things do. I thought they made guns automatic from semi automatic but according to the justices “nope it doesn’t release more than one bullet with one trigger pull so it’s not automatic”. These piece of shit justices do realize that the Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock used that device to kill 58 people in less than 20 minutes, oh wait no it was 60 people (2 died later) in less than 10 minutes.  Thomas wrote the opinion. Idk. if bump stocks make guns behave like it, it should be good enough. This court is a joke. Even Trump thought those things were worth banning. This fuckin court are clowns

https://nypost.com/2024/06/14/us-news/supreme-court-overturns-trump-era-ban-on-bump-stocks/amp/

[1pooh4u]

I forgot to mention over 400 people were injured in that same 10 minutes

[katt_goddess]

7 hours ago, 1pooh4u said:

SCOTUS overturned a Trump era ban on the bump stock. Idk exactly what these things do. I thought they made guns automatic from semi automatic but according to the justices “nope it doesn’t release more than one bullet with one trigger pull so it’s not automatic”. These piece of shit justices do realize that the Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock used that device to kill 58 people in less than 20 minutes, oh wait no it was 60 people (2 died later) in less than 10 minutes.  Thomas wrote the opinion. Idk. if bump stocks make guns behave like it, it should be good enough. This court is a joke. Even Trump thought those things were worth banning. This fuckin court are clowns

https://nypost.com/2024/06/14/us-news/supreme-court-overturns-trump-era-ban-on-bump-stocks/amp/

Bump stocks use the recoil of firing to cause a semi-automatic to fire cartridges at a nearly automatic rate. They are kidding themselves by playing the narrow narrative with this - the only reason for a bump stock is to literally turn a semi- into as close to a fully-automatic as possible 'without breaking the law'. Well, it was deemed a law breaker by someone who IS a law breaker.

And someone should run an audit to see who has been getting [ and forgetting to file ] 'gifts' from gun lobbyists.  

[Master-Debater131]

The thing with this ruling, and many others recently, is SCOTUS is telling them exactly how to get around the fact that the President isnt a King. If you want things done, Congress can act and pass a law. Thats how our system works. POTUS cant just dictate things, and agencies dont have unlimited powers. Congress has the ability, and authority, to pass laws and rules that can address things like bump stocks.

[katt_goddess]

6 hours ago, Master-Debater131 said:

The thing with this ruling, and many others recently, is SCOTUS is telling them exactly how to get around the fact that the President isnt a King. If you want things done, Congress can act and pass a law. Thats how our system works. POTUS cant just dictate things, and agencies dont have unlimited powers. Congress has the ability, and authority, to pass laws and rules that can address things like bump stocks.

That's all very well and good until you look back at a four-year run where Executive Orders were signed in monogrammed sharpie marker and fry grease fingerprints when they weren't just being outright twitted at 3a and virtually every last republican in Congress couldn't stop applauding. And whenever there's a democrat in the WH, republicans suddenly decide that they need to be the ultimate checks and balances to that person's supposed attempts at tyranny - usually by doing as little as possible, aiming for performative acts instead of intelligent acts, and outright blocking anything that might help the American people because that's automatically something that is a win for the WH and not frickin' Americans. 

[discolé monade]

i'm not sure how to understand this. so, being ignorantly poor, it would seem that profits made from overseas investments, should be taxed. 

but i am of the belief that everyone should be taxed, and that 13% across the board wouldn't be a terrible idea. 

In reading his opinion from the bench, Justice Brett Kavanaugh repeatedly stressed that the court’s decision was “narrow” and did not implicate the raging debate over a wealth tax.

[katt_goddess]

A flat tax favors the wealthy because that 13% would only be paid by the poorest of the poor since they wouldn't be able to contest it while the rich would still have all the available loopholes and resources to avoid paying any taxes at all. Consider that the corporate tax was something like 31% on profits and yet most if not all of the biggest of the bigs were technically paying less in taxes than the average middle class individual. After loopholes, there are years in which someone like Amazon paid $0 in taxes despite being massively profitable. 

It also favors the wealthy because even if they did pay the straight amount, the poor would notice the loss far more. If you only have $100 to your name and it's flat taxed at 13%, you are going to notice that missing $13 even if its 'only' $13. 13% on a million is $130,000 which sounds like a lot when you don't have it but its nothing to someone who already has all their bills taken care of and a paid roof over their head. 

Yeah, I'm being simplistic on it but it's been a long week.  

Basically, flat tax isn't the answer. Super gluing shut all the loopholes and treating the rich tax cheats with the same level of venom that the average person expects to receive if they skipped on their filing would be better starts. And yes, treating those tax havens as taxable. 

[Raptorpat]

53 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

i'm not sure how to understand this. so, being ignorantly poor, it would seem that profits made from overseas investments, should be taxed. 

The issue in the case asi understand it is that the profits weren't "realized" yet. Our income tax system is largely built around taxing at the point of transaction. To take it out of the realm of investments, think like income/payroll taxes, or even sales taxes, where the tax happens at the point of transaction. So with investments, basically the taxing happens when you cash out the stock, because that's when the profit is considered realized.

That's how the true wealthy get out of paying taxes no matter how high the income tax is. They don't have a salary to tax like we do, so it doesn't matter whether the income tax is flat or progressive. They instead own heaps upon heaps of investment assets, and instead of ever selling the assets and "realizing" the profit to trigger a tax, they leverage the assets in other ways for their spending money.

The debate that Kavanaugh is tiptoeing around is over the concept of a "wealth tax". In contrast to the other taxes mentioned, a wealth tax is a tax directly on the asset, rather than on a "realized" transaction. So think like taxing someone just for owning $X of stock, rather than the profits derived from selling it. The idea of a wealth tax is an open constitutional question.

So basically what Kavanaugh is saying is "we're allowing Trump's repatriation tax which is kind of like a wealth tax because there was no "realization", but it's not really a wealth tax and this decision definitely shouldn't be read as preapproving the Democrats to impose wealth taxes."

Edited June 20 by Raptorpat

[discolé monade]

5 hours ago, katt_goddess said:

A flat tax favors the wealthy because that 13% would only be paid by the poorest of the poor since they wouldn't be able to contest it while the rich would still have all the available loopholes and resources to avoid paying any taxes at all. Consider that the corporate tax was something like 31% on profits and yet most if not all of the biggest of the bigs were technically paying less in taxes than the average middle class individual. After loopholes, there are years in which someone like Amazon paid $0 in taxes despite being massively profitable. 

It also favors the wealthy because even if they did pay the straight amount, the poor would notice the loss far more. If you only have $100 to your name and it's flat taxed at 13%, you are going to notice that missing $13 even if its 'only' $13. 13% on a million is $130,000 which sounds like a lot when you don't have it but its nothing to someone who already has all their bills taken care of and a paid roof over their head. 

Yeah, I'm being simplistic on it but it's been a long week.  

Basically, flat tax isn't the answer. Super gluing shut all the loopholes and treating the rich tax cheats with the same level of venom that the average person expects to receive if they skipped on their filing would be better starts. And yes, treating those tax havens as taxable. 

and that absolutely will never happen. 

eh. 

eat the rich. 

[1pooh4u]

So the SCOTUS ruled that a federal ban on firearms for people under the control of domestic violence restraining orders is fine and fits nicely under the nation’s traditions of making provisions for individuals that should not have guns. I’m totally cool with this, believe me. I got no skin in this game. My restraining order keeping me away from that one clown expired a few years ago my only question is how come that fit but NYCs law that was in effect for over a century somehow did not

Spoiler

The restraining order line was not fr jic some believe I just revealed a thing 😆😶‍🌫️

 

[MasqueradeOverture]

4 hours ago, 1pooh4u said:

So the SCOTUS ruled that a federal ban on firearms for people under the control of domestic violence restraining orders is fine and fits nicely under the nation’s traditions of making provisions for individuals that should not have guns. I’m totally cool with this, believe me. I got no skin in this game. My restraining order keeping me away from that one clown expired a few years ago my only question is how come that fit but NYCs law that was in effect for over a century somehow did not

  Hide contents

The restraining order line was not fr jic some believe I just revealed a thing 😆😶‍🌫️

 

Oooooooo but guess who was the 1 in the 8-1 vote???

Uncle Ruckus needs to die.

[MasqueradeOverture]

Speaking things that are actually now dead: Visa Weddings

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-says-citizens-cant-sue-over-foreign-spouses-visa-denials-2024-06-21/

Quote

The court in a 6-3 decision, opens new tab said Sandra Munoz, a U.S. citizen and civil rights lawyer, cannot challenge the U.S. Department of State's denial of her El Salvadoran husband's visa application after the agency waited three years to explain that it suspected him of being a gang member.

Quote

Visa denials are not reviewable in court unless the government violates an applicant's constitutional rights in the process.

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected Munoz's claim that the delay in explaining the denial violated her due process rights by interfering with her fundamental right to marry.

Her claim "involves more than marriage and more than spousal cohabitation — it includes the right to have her noncitizen husband enter (and remain in) the United States," Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court.

The ruling reverses a 2022 decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that revived Munoz's lawsuit against the State Department.

 

[MasqueradeOverture]

The dystopian hits keep coming:

Supreme Court allows White House contacts with social media firms - The Washington Post

Supreme Court Greenlights Corrupt Gratuities in Snyder Decision (rollingstone.com)

[discolé monade]

Get ready for the Supreme Court to drop some bombshell decisions

[1pooh4u]

4 hours ago, MasqueradeOverture said:

The dystopian hits keep coming:

Supreme Court allows White House contacts with social media firms - The Washington Post

Supreme Court Greenlights Corrupt Gratuities in Snyder Decision (rollingstone.com)

Ofc they were gonna vote that way. Thomas regularly takes legal bribes. They all do and there’s really nothing we can do about it. We always seem to allow the fox to watch the hen house in our government  

I’m more suspicious of them saying abortion to save the life of the mother is a given in the constitution  (the opinion was posted and quickly deleted) 

[Raptorpat]

5 hours ago, 1pooh4u said:

I’m more suspicious of them saying abortion to save the life of the mother is a given in the constitution  (the opinion was posted and quickly deleted) 

From what I saw/heard, the case isn't really ruling on the constitutionality of it. The lower court said that emergency abortions could continue in Idaho while the litigation over its extreme ban proceeds, and the anti-abortion side challenged that temporary decision. SCOTUS said that the lower court's decision remains in effect while the litigation proceeds.

[discolé monade]

19 hours ago, 1pooh4u said:

Ofc they were gonna vote that way. Thomas regularly takes legal bribes. They all do and there’s really nothing we can do about it. We always seem to allow the fox to watch the hen house in our government  

I’m more suspicious of them saying abortion to save the life of the mother is a given in the constitution  (the opinion was posted and quickly deleted) 

looking at the comments from dr of the ob/gyn community. this isn't really a win. just a 'kick the can down the road' scenerio. they forsee confusion and interference with this.

[discolé monade]

Homeless people can be ticketed for sleeping outside, Supreme Court rules

i wonder, exactly, how 'they' think this will work? have those arrested and prisoned for marijuana related offences from decades ago, out? if not, then are we saying that the homeless, that are homeless, mostly because most have no money, ( i feel like if i go on, i'll just be pushing the merry-go-round) will be jailed. so over populate the jail with homeless that are more often than not, mentally ill in some capacity. 

life is pretty fucking simple, and yet, we have allowed people , to make it difficult. and we go along for the ride. 

 

[Master-Debater131]

I guess this is where the SCOTUS talk can happen then. Reposted from the politics thread.

 

SCOTUS just tossed out Chevron.

This is probably the most important decision that SCOTUS has had in decades. Far more impactful than Obergerfell or Dobbs. This drastically undercuts the administrative state and the ability for agencies to simply dictate rules and regulations.

 

Edited June 28 by Master-Debater131

[1pooh4u]

The 3 liberal justices, who aren’t even really all that liberal, must really really hate their colleagues by now. That’s so fuckin dumb. Getting a ticket or going to jail for doing nothing other than sleeping outside.  Thomas can accept millions in gifts as well as our politicians and that’s ok but fuckin heaven forbid you sleep outside 

[1pooh4u]

2 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

I guess this is where the SCOTUS talk can happen then. Reposted from the politics thread.

 

SCOTUS just tossed out Chevron.

This is probably the most important decision that SCOTUS has had in decades. Far more impactful than Obergerfell or Dobbs. This drastically undercuts the administrative state and the ability for agencies to simply dictate rules and regulations.

 

This is actually terrible and will lead to the destruction of the planet 

[discolé monade]

2 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

This is actually terrible and will lead to the destruction of the planet 

i was coming back to post this decision. 

i'll add this to md's post 

Groups on the left, including environmental activists, have defended Chevron, in part because it gives leeway to address issues like climate change.

The challengers argued that the National Marine Fisheries Service, the federal body that oversees ocean resources, did not have authority to issue the regulation under the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

[1pooh4u]

In an interesting twist Justice Jackson and Justice Barret switched sides. Jackson sided with the Conservatives and Coney w the libs in either case a few Jan 6ers are getting out of jail 

[1pooh4u]

https://nypost.com/2024/06/28/us-news/supreme-court-narrows-obstruction-charge-used-against-jan-6-capitol-rioters/?utm_campaign=iphone_nyp&utm_source=pasteboard_app

[MasqueradeOverture]

WE. ARE. SO. FUCKED. 

[SwimOdin]

Looks like I’m doing weed again.

[Master-Debater131]

42 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

This is actually terrible and will lead to the destruction of the planet 

Probably comes as no surprise, but I completely disagree.

If we want rules or laws to be in place, then Congress has the power to do so. Shouldnt be unelected bureaucrats essentially writing laws.

[Jman]

2 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Probably comes as no surprise, but I completely disagree.

If we want rules or laws to be in place, then Congress has the power to do so. Shouldnt be unelected bureaucrats essentially writing laws.

It’s more a damning indictment of Congress that no one trusts them to set up the regulations because of how broken it is. If we had a functioning representative government and not Grenee and Bobbi the HJ Clown this would be a matter of jurisdiction.

[Master-Debater131]

2 minutes ago, Jman said:

It’s more a damning indictment of Congress that no one trusts them to set up the regulations because of how broken it is. If we had a functioning representative government and not Grenee and Bobbi the HJ Clown this would be a matter of jurisdiction.

Oh I completely agree. Part of why we are where we are is because Congress has refused to do its job for decades now. They outsource the hard decisions to the courts and bureaucracy rather than taking a vote that might cost them their job. This has been a failure for both parties for a very long time.

[Belize]

13 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Probably comes as no surprise, but I completely disagree.

If we want rules or laws to be in place, then Congress has the power to do so. Shouldnt be unelected bureaucrats essentially writing laws.

 

 

You misunderstand today's decision in the Supreme Court. This ruling does *not* give power back to the legislative branch in interpretating regulations. It gives power to the *judicial branch* to do so. If your concern is about unelected bureaucrats, judges seem to be just that. 

This is a power grab by the judicial branch from the executive branch. The executive agencies are full of experts in their fields and can properly interpret regulations that apply to those fields. Judges are *not* experts in those fields. 

[1pooh4u]

43 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Probably comes as no surprise, but I completely disagree.

If we want rules or laws to be in place, then Congress has the power to do so. Shouldnt be unelected bureaucrats essentially writing laws.

It’s not “unelected bureaucrats” we’re talking about experts in their respective fields being ignored. Congress gets nothing done and people should not have a problem with agencies making bag limits and size limits on hunting and fishing or making emergency decisions that impact public health, but sure MD, go off on how great it’s going to be to wait on Congress to do anything about any of the things I just mentioned 

[Master-Debater131]

14 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

It’s not “unelected bureaucrats” we’re talking about experts in their respective fields being ignored. Congress gets nothing done and people should not have a problem with agencies making bag limits and size limits on hunting and fishing or making emergency decisions that impact public health, but sure MD, go off on how great it’s going to be to wait on Congress to do anything about any of the things I just mentioned 

They may be experts, but they were not elected and are working in the bureaucracy. By the very definition of the word they are unelected bureaucrats.

There is nothing preventing them from continuing their work, or their ability to recommend changes and rules. All that changes is they cannot simply enact whatever they want now. If what they recommend is good enough to be a law, then they can go to Congress to pass a law.

The failure of one branch of Government to do its job does not mean that someone else simply gets to fill that void. If rules are laws are not getting passed then thats a failure of Congress and means we need better people in Congress.

[1pooh4u]

4 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

They may be experts, but they were not elected and are working in the bureaucracy. By the very definition of the word they are unelected bureaucrats.

There is nothing preventing them from continuing their work, or their ability to recommend changes and rules. All that changes is they cannot simply enact whatever they want now. If what they recommend is good enough to be a law, then they can go to Congress to pass a law.

The failure of one branch of Government to do its job does not mean that someone else simply gets to fill that void. If rules are laws are not getting passed then thats a failure of Congress and means we need better people in Congress.

This ruling isn’t even about Congress so much as it’s about judges having the right to decide, based off nothing but their opinions, that the experts are wrong. So what you think this ruling does, it doesn’t even do, because it’s unelected judges deciding what will or won’t happen unless Congress makes laws with “clear language” 

[1pooh4u]

To pretend that we don’t live in a representative democracy is a little weird to me. We elect people at local, state and federal levels and we then look to them to choose people that are experts at certain positions. Our President does it, our mayors and governors do it. In our democracy we don’t elect people at all positions. It’s not possible. Sometimes it doesn’t work out so well when our officials make the choice. Like the time we had wtf owns the company that makes miracle gro as the head of the EPA but other times it’s ok. Like Biden choosing who is going to protect the average consumer.  
Waiting on Congress to do the right thing when 99% of them are bought by the same people we need protection from is nuts. They will never legislate appropriately anything concerning public health safety or environmental protection 

[katt_goddess]

32 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

They may be experts, but they were not elected and are working in the bureaucracy. By the very definition of the word they are unelected bureaucrats.

There is nothing preventing them from continuing their work, or their ability to recommend changes and rules. All that changes is they cannot simply enact whatever they want now. If what they recommend is good enough to be a law, then they can go to Congress to pass a law.

The failure of one branch of Government to do its job does not mean that someone else simply gets to fill that void. If rules are laws are not getting passed then thats a failure of Congress and means we need better people in Congress.

By this argument, you are 100% behind politicians getting between patients and doctors because the politicians are 'elected' but the doctors are merely experts/unelected bureaucrats. You better hope you never need anything medical that someone whose last job was hotel clerk for a Motel 8 decides is merely 'elective' and not really necessary. 

'Chevron' put the word of experts in their various fields at the top of the pile. What this decision does is literally allow people who cry about liking beer and people who go on massive vacations paid for by Hitler-collectors and people who think rape isn't real/rape charges ruin perfectly good boys-being-boys to make the ultimate decision over whether or not you should be allowed to have clean air to breath in the next 10 years, whether you should be allowed to make your own medical decisions, and whether you totally asked for it if you were attacked on your way to the store. 

Congress fails to enact things that will actually help people because massive amounts of those so-called elected officials get massive allowances from those that benefit the most by destroying the most. When you get tons of money and gifts from an oil company, the last thing you are going to ever do on your own is pass anything that says dumping toxic waste in public landfills is wrong. And as long as judge-shopping is allowed and horribly unqualified judges who got their appointments by writing essays about their favorite fast food have jobs, killing Chevron is pretty much killing the world. It's also in the Project 2025 shitsterpiece.  

[discolé monade]

plays from the '2025 project'?

[1pooh4u]

“They maybe experts but they’re not elected” might be one of the craziest sentences I’ve read today. Basically it’s like saying “no one elected you to know what you’re talking about, so, fuck you! I want these clowns I elected to do something about it through ignorant legislation based off the wants of a few mega rich people to do it instead. Despite us already electing people to choose the people trusted with the task cuz they studied it for decades to make the calls”

we truly are fucked 

[SwimOdin]

9 hours ago, SwimOdin said:

Looks like I’m doing weed again.

Everything’s going to be ok

[1pooh4u]

34 minutes ago, SwimOdin said:

Everything’s going to be ok

Did you do weed again?  If not, that’s cool, cuz with or without the weed, shit is gonna be how it’s gonna be.  

[1pooh4u]

Here’s a little something on why the SCOTUS ruling on the Chevron Doctrine was bad also Congress already approved the chevron doctrine 40 years ago 

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/oMAy2iKjeHLquzL4/?mibextid=GOdwvm

[stilgar]

Why are people like md so fucking brain dead?

[1pooh4u]

6 minutes ago, stilgar said:

Why are people like md so fucking brain dead?

Idk if I’d go so far as to say “Brain dead”  but her reasoning as to why it’s a win is def a little bit crazy. “We didn’t elect the experts” is a crazy take considering judges we definitely didn’t elect are getting more power as a result of the doctrine’s demise.  So much for set precedent 🤷‍♀️

[1pooh4u]

Trump likes to make a lot of “radical judges” statements when it’s the Supreme Court that is a radical right wing court. Deciding things based off who donates the most and not what’s best for everyone or what prior justices have done 

[Blackrose321]

On 6/28/2024 at 3:57 PM, 1pooh4u said:

“They maybe experts but they’re not elected” might be one of the craziest sentences I’ve read today. Basically it’s like saying “no one elected you to know what you’re talking about, so, fuck you! I want these clowns I elected to do something about it through ignorant legislation based off the wants of a few mega rich people to do it instead. Despite us already electing people to choose the people trusted with the task cuz they studied it for decades to make the calls”

we truly are fucked 

Blech, that reminds me of a recent school board election that went the way of the dumb because of anti-expert/education propaganda. Three educators with 30+ years of experience among them were running for three open board slots.

As I was standing in line, right-wingers kept offering up—without being asked—how they were voting. One didn't know who was even running, so I told him that I knew three teachers and a cop were running, but I was unfamiliar with the others. He laughed and said, "Oh, I don't think I'll be voting for educators." So that meant he would vote for the cop, the only male on the ballot, so impossible to miss, and then two other random people...

Another right-winger tried electioneering in line by spreading misinformation about how the board would interfere with the curriculum—go "woke" basically, although she clearly didn't want to say that part publicly. The only reason a massive amount of people turned out was that they hate trans people. There was a recent kerfuffle over bathrooms, so all the boomers turned out to make sure trans kids don't feel welcome.

Finally, a teacher in line just laid the hammer down. She was polite but stern. She began correcting everything the other woman had gotten wrong. It was hilarious; in under five minutes, she managed to make the other woman so uncomfortable that she turned around and stopped talking. It was brilliant.

I walked out of there feeling pretty sure that the board was about to swing even further right. And it did. None of the educators were elected, but the cop was. The excuse one of the bigoted voters gave was that "we used to have a lot of different kinds of people on the school board." Yeah, and schools used to be segregated; what's your point? Clearly the point is to continue mistreating society's most vulnerable children.

[1pooh4u]

5 minutes ago, Blackrose321 said:

Blech, that reminds me of a recent school board election that went the way of the dumb because of anti-expert/education propaganda. Three educators with 30+ years of experience among them were running for three open board slots.

As I was standing in line, right-wingers kept offering up—without being asked—how they were voting. One didn't know who was even running, so I told him that I knew three teachers and a cop were running, but I was unfamiliar with the others. He laughed and said, "Oh, I don't think I'll be voting for educators." So that meant he would vote for the cop, the only male on the ballot, so impossible to miss, and then two other random people...

Another right-winger tried electioneering in line by spreading misinformation about how the board would interfere with the curriculum—go "woke" basically, although she clearly didn't want to say that part publicly. The only reason a massive amount of people turned out was that they hate trans people. There was a recent kerfuffle over bathrooms, so all the boomers turned out to make sure trans kids don't feel welcome.

Finally, a teacher in line just laid the hammer down. She was polite but stern. She began correcting everything the other woman had gotten wrong. It was hilarious; in under five minutes, she managed to make the other woman so uncomfortable that she turned around and stopped talking. It was brilliant.

I walked out of there feeling pretty sure that the board was about to swing even further right. And it did. None of the educators were elected, but the cop was. The excuse one of the bigoted voters gave was that "we used to have a lot of different kinds of people on the school board." Yeah, and schools used to be segregated; what's your point? Clearly the point is to continue mistreating society's most vulnerable children.

I’m going to sound boomer af when I say this but I blame the internet.  Back in the day stupid people were kept pretty largely separated because of distance and communication technology was basically cups with string. Now stupid people by the millions can gather in real time and co-sign each other’s horrible beliefs. People get paid a lot of money to spread all sorts of misinformation because they know once it’s out there and a few people believe it, it won’t ever go away. No matter the evidence to the contrary.  The internet is both wonderful and horrible all at once