Jump to content
UnevenEdge

Recommended Posts

Posted
17 hours ago, discolé monade said:

His wife or their parents are from India, instead of standing by his wife and family, he sided with a racist because “his life shouldn’t be ruined over social media posts he made in college”

Bro….he said this shit just 6 months ago. 

  • Thanks 4
Posted
2 hours ago, 1pooh4u said:

His wife or their parents are from India, instead of standing by his wife and family, he sided with a racist because “his life shouldn’t be ruined over social media posts he made in college”

Bro….he said this shit just 6 months ago. 

If that brat is a 'kid', then he shouldn't be digging through sensitive national infos. 

And if he's an adult, then he's old enough to know better than to be that stupid and should suffer for his intentional stupidity. 

  • Like 4
Posted
19 hours ago, discolé monade said:

 so i'm looking up some info, for absolutely NO reason. like...at all....

anyway....it's weird how there are highter standards for a ga county commissioner than there are for the u.s. president. 

Screenshot2025-02-083_27_14PM.thumb.png.c05a96c8c3df196b570aa4bbe8842431.pngScreenshot2025-02-083_27_27PM.thumb.png.4d083dabbf81a299c6e2bdd3ae09fb15.png

Sad shit. Trump can’t be a notary cuz you can’t have felonies but he and anyone can run for offices that make national legislation with them. Go figure 🤷‍♀️ 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Posted

All Cabinet departments — like the Defense Department or the Treasury — as well as independent agencies, like the Securities and Exchange Commission, must comply with the APA in all policy actions or decisions.

The APA was signed by President Harry Truman and received bipartisan support after a decade-long effort by Republican and Democratic lawmakers.

Concerned with a burgeoning "administrative state" after the New Deal expanded the role of executive agencies, Republicans wanted judges to review and curb the executive branch's growing influence.

  • Like 4
Posted
21 hours ago, tsar4 said:

image.png.6b38f48726f4df92c53fe1ec23e2a081.png

marko elez - working at X

edward coristine - working at neuralink

luke farritor - thiel fellowship member

gavin klegor - software engineer at linkedin/databricks

akash bobba - intern at bridgewater associates

ethan shaotran - studying at harvard

gautier killian - engineer at jump trading

as for what they were doing ... i guess the assumption is hacking an election?

  • Thanks 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

He looks like someone that would get annoying quick. Elon loves those low morals, no ethics people 

  • Like 2
Posted
2 hours ago, tsar4 said:

I do get a little nervous about leaning on the judicial to hold things together, tho..

Under normal circumstances, totally fine, but, this administration has shown a clear disregard for legality already, and it still relies on actually enforcing the law in a way they don't just ignore. Every unconstitutional order is all too easily jumped on by anyone that thinks to gain from it, politically or financially, despite the orders not explicitly being laws.

Idk. Just sorta anxiously waiting for the masks to come off and they all decide they're just going to make their own rules and declare courts have no power.

Judicial wins are a great start, but I definitely feel a lot better seeing the wins in action.

Costco shareholders rejected a proposal to review the company's DEI protocols

  • Like 4
Posted
8 minutes ago, wacky1980 said:

Yeah but JBP is also a POS.

Why does everything have to be 100% this or 100% that?

Ehh, nevermind. Losing battle around here.

What about what he said is incorrect, though? Or is it okay to ignore fact because it's from someone you don't like?

  • Like 2
Posted
1 minute ago, naraku360 said:

Care to elaborate?

I don't know anything about him.

Not sure how well you'll accept anecdote, but his policies during COVID damn near killed my small businessES. While others <1hr away flourished, our license was yanked for serving 2 people in the same space at the same time.

I could go on but the effort seems wasted here.

Posted
5 minutes ago, PenguinBoss said:

What about what he said is incorrect, though? Or is it okay to ignore fact because it's from someone you don't like?

He phrased his statements in a way that don't break law. Purely semantics, but here we are.

Posted
3 minutes ago, wacky1980 said:

He phrased his statements in a way that don't break law. Purely semantics, but here we are.

Vance is justifying Trump, and the administration as a whole, not following the rulings of the courts. He's not posting a non-sequitur; he's teeing up "We know better than you, so we're going to ignore you, Constitution or not." Pritzker is calling it out.

It's fairly obvious your axe to grind is making you biased.

  • Thanks 4
Posted
2 minutes ago, PenguinBoss said:

Vance is justifying Trump, and the administration as a whole, not following the rulings of the courts. He's not posting a non-sequitur; he's teeing up "We know better than you, so we're going to ignore you, Constitution or not." Pritzker is calling it out.

It's fairly obvious your axe to grind is making you biased.

You have to keep in mind that the entire thing is hypothetical. The courts don't have ultimate authority over the exe branch.

Also, JBP is fiddling while Rome burns...

Posted
Just now, [classic swim] said:

Superbowl food’s made us a little cunty tonight!

Maybe you folks. I'm high AF and enjoying watching all the Midwest teams eat shit. 🤷‍♂️

Posted
1 hour ago, wacky1980 said:

*Gestures wildly at the entire mass of uemb*

So, this

 

2 hours ago, naraku360 said:

Care to elaborate?

I don't know anything about him.

Was too hostile?

I'm not "the UEMB". We're different people.

If you want to complain about people not listening, maybe try explaining first. I asked a question, about someone I know nothing about and have no reason to defend nor disparage, and you got snippy with me over it.

If asking for elaboration is too hostile for you, then I don't know what to tell you.

  • Thanks 2
Posted
2 hours ago, wacky1980 said:

Yeah but JBP is also a POS.

Why does everything have to be 100% this or 100% that?

Ehh, nevermind. Losing battle around here.

blanket statement, is blanket. 

however, minus the all hope is lost for a cordial debate. please stop that. 

a felon in office. let us just digest that fucking nugget.

then we can move onto how this administration is trying it's damndest to [sound like, look like, seems like to be the next hermit country. cutting our ties with the remaining few allies we have left. i'm all for cutting the budget, specifically the military complex...but come on my dude, there are laws in place to make sure that all the checks and balances are there. 

i'm not entirely sure who you voted for, nor do i care, but defending this particular administration, just seems like the wrong side of history. 

 

  • Thanks 3
Posted
19 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

So US buys the land and they pay pennies for labor to build fancy resorts they themselves will never enjoy. Unless they work there. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
55 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

Buy it from f'ing whom? It is the Palestinian people's land, and they do not want to give it up, especially not to the U.S. or Israel who bombed the hell out of the place in the first place, which is the whole reason it needs to be rebuilt now. Blowing the place up and then using that as an excuse to steal the people's territory... Are we just supposed to be full on gangster's now? I mean, I know this shit is just a distraction, but it still pisses me off with how nonchalantly he's trying to pass off what's essentially being a part of a genocide as nothing more than a real estate deal. >:(

  • Like 5
Posted
7 minutes ago, Dark_Cloud_Overhead said:

Buy it from f'ing whom? It is the Palestinian people's land, and they do not want to give it up, especially not to the U.S. or Israel who bombed the hell out of the place in the first place, which is the whole reason it needs to be rebuilt now. Blowing the place up and then using that as an excuse to steal the people's territory... Are we just supposed to be full on gangster's now? I mean, I know this shit is just a distraction, but it still pisses me off with how nonchalantly he's trying to pass off what's essentially being a part of a genocide as nothing more than a real estate deal. >:(

They’ll buy it from desperate Palestinians for pennies on the dollar, providing they can prove they own it, which they probably won’t be able to do because their records are blown to fuck somewhere. So then they’ll (the US or likely a land developer) give the $ to the Israeli government, who will quickly fuck over the real land owner with a “who tills the land owns the land”. It’ll be a complete fuck over of the Palestinian people as their land gets “bought” right from under their feet. 

  • Like 5
Posted
9 hours ago, naraku360 said:

 

 

If asking for elaboration is too hostile for you, then I don't know what to tell you.

I dunno, Wacky has been full defensive. He says he misread my post, so I'll give him that but he seemed upset that I even asked what Elon has done.

  • Like 1
Posted
13 hours ago, wacky1980 said:

You have to keep in mind that the entire thing is hypothetical. The courts don't have ultimate authority over the exe branch.

Also, JBP is fiddling while Rome burns...

Yeah, man, Trump thinking he can do whatever he wants is "hypothetical." He hasn't lived his entire life around that notion.

  • Like 4
Posted
12 hours ago, naraku360 said:

If you want to complain about people not listening, maybe try explaining first. I asked a question, about someone I know nothing about and have no reason to defend nor disparage, and you got snippy with me over it.

If asking for elaboration is too hostile for you, then I don't know what to tell you.

the explanation is unnecessary. i wasn't being snippy with you, apologies if it came off that way. i have long had an axe to grind with pritzker, and for me to elaborate on the entire thing would have been a waste of time. i was bored enough with the game to stroll in here, but not bored enough to write an essay. i didn't want to type it all out. and you wouldn't want to read it all, trust me.

Posted
2 hours ago, André Toulon said:

I dunno, Wacky has been full defensive. He says he misread my post, so I'll give him that but he seemed upset that I even asked what Elon has done.

Idk why anyone is trying to talk or converse with him on anything he’s done nothing but play victim since he got here and despite several people asking for him to elaborate it’s too much for him to do so, or we don’t want to hear it. Fuck him. Can’t wait until he blocks everyone 😆

Posted
11 hours ago, discolé monade said:

blanket statement, is blanket. 

however, minus the all hope is lost for a cordial debate. please stop that. 

a felon in office. let us just digest that fucking nugget.

then we can move onto how this administration is trying it's damndest to [sound like, look like, seems like to be the next hermit country. cutting our ties with the remaining few allies we have left. i'm all for cutting the budget, specifically the military complex...but come on my dude, there are laws in place to make sure that all the checks and balances are there. 

i'm not entirely sure who you voted for, nor do i care, but defending this particular administration, just seems like the wrong side of history. 

 

ok, so nothing in that post was in defense of the trump admin. i didn't vote them in, and i do not support them. that's what i was referring to with the "100% this or 100% that" part. it's entirely possible to dislike a democrat without supporting the republican he's criticizing. but defending that position is a real chore here, because it inevitably devolves into name calling and flaming.

i regret posting last night. not because of what i said, but because i should have known it would stir up some shit. and that's not what i came back around here to do. shrug.

  • Thanks 1
Posted
3 hours ago, André Toulon said:

I dunno, Wacky has been full defensive. He says he misread my post, so I'll give him that but he seemed upset that I even asked what Elon has done.

i asked for clarification because i didn't read it correctly at first. when i read it again, i understood what you were saying and edited. then i responded to your ask in a subsequent post. i was never upset with you. but the resulting conversation kinda set that tone.

---

ok i've steered this thread off-topic enough. ✌️

  • Like 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, wacky1980 said:

ok, so nothing in that post was in defense of the trump admin. i didn't vote them in, and i do not support them. that's what i was referring to with the "100% this or 100% that" part. it's entirely possible to dislike a democrat without supporting the republican he's criticizing. but defending that position is a real chore here, because it inevitably devolves into name calling and flaming.

i regret posting last night. not because of what i said, but because i should have known it would stir up some shit. and that's not what i came back around here to do. shrug.

i'm not name calling. i'm merely pointing out, exactly how you are coming across. 

nobody wants to the vindication of a nazi, his facist party, or the unconstitutional things they are doing. 

it's really quite simple. 

i've not called you anything, nor flamed,  but leave it to *gestures at people defending a facist regime dem. or rep.* to get bent out of shape.  

  • Like 3

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...