

That’s never stopped them before.
That’s never stopped them before.
The allegations were determined to be true.
No, they weren’t! Quote me the legal text were the judge says that. You can’t, it’s not in there. I guess you still didn’t read what the judges wrote because you just keep quoting that incorrect article. The judges found the allegations plausible enough to deny bond. That’s it! There was no further legal finding. You keep saying over and over that it was “found” by the court but that’s simply a lie. I don’t know if you’re being obtuse on purpose or not. Also, that’s not how allegations work. Once it’s been found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a court, it is no longer alleged. Judges only say alleged when they mean that something is unproven. It’s pretty simple, I don’t how this is confusing to you. So, there is no legal finding of gang membership, and any argument made on this fictitious “finding” is meaningless.
fear that MS-13s rival gang would persecute him upon his return, which basically confirms that he is an MS-13 member
Lots of reasons a gang would want someone dead besides being in a rival gang. This argument is also meaningless. Taking out the remaining nonsense, there’s not much else to respond to.
What do YOU think should be done with him? He would NOT win any court case fighting against his illegal alien status because he is an illegal alien, self admittedly.
Same as anybody. He should be given his court case. What the judge says goes, subject to appeal. If the judge says deport him, then yeah, deport him, I wouldn’t care then. What I care about is that the Fifth amendment says everyone gets due process. It doesn’t say “unless they’re sure to lose” or “unless you’re convinced they’re a gang member” or “unless they’re an illegal immigrant.” It does say, “No person shall be […] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” which, unless you don’t consider him a person, is pretty fucking clear.
Yeah, I saw. To be fair to them, I did respond after your last response, so perhaps that’s why they jumped to responding to me instead. Who knows? And yeah, I was planning to give up on them if they did anything other than make a coherent response actually addressing my argument with something from the court docs, which I think is highly unlikely.
Seriously, read the actual fucking legal documents linked in that biased-ass article. They denied him bond while waiting for the real hearing due to the gang allegations. Nothing more, nothing less. The judges themselves refer to them as allegations in their findings. The traffic court thing is unrelated to him being a gang member, it is relevant to if he should be released while waiting, which is the only thing they were finding on. I read the orders myself, they clearly make no finding on if he’s in a gang and no findings on deportation.
Ok, that’s something. Let’s see, the article headline still says “DOJ Releases Dossier Of Deported Maryland Man’s Alleged MS-13 Gang Ties.” Emphasis added by me. Now why would they say “alleged” if the court already found him guilty? Ah, right, because those were bond hearings. Yes, I actually read the legal documents linked by that article and both court findings were that the unproven claims of gang affiliation, combined with the fact that he had missed traffic court in the past, were sufficient to deny release on bond until his status hearing could be held. No further hearing was ever held. At no point did the legal system establish guilt, make a definitive finding of fact, or make a judicial decision on his deportation.
So, unless you have other court records to link me to that show otherwise, then you are wrong: no such thing has been legally proven.
Edit: Even the appeals Judge refers to it as “allegations of gang affiliation” in their order affirming the lower court decision that you are calling proof.
Sure it has. Go on, do tell. Which court? What case? Who was the Judge?
I assume the term is referring to the person knowing only the vibes of the program they want to code rather than comprehending the details of what it needs to do.
A big part of the problem is that plenty of Republicans would answer some or all of your pointed questions with an unironic “yes.”
Easy. He’ll just keep having more kids.
Sounds like you’ve got executive level potential.
If I may abuse a metaphor, the money they are getting now is the bird in the hand, and the money they could be getting from a enthusiastically supportive base is the two birds in the bush. Why chase what they might get, when they can hold on to what they have? Especially when they consider that letting go of the bird in the hand will cause it to fly straight over to join the birds already in their opponent’s hand.
Now, we might say the bird in the hand is poisonous, and should be discarded regardless, but a look at longtime party leadership makes me think they know, and they don’t care. Those people haven’t cared for a long time, if they ever did. As long as the likes of Pelosi can keep their own seat, it doesn’t matter how much damage is done to the country, they can keep enriching themselves while claiming to care.
Or, at least that’s what it looks like from where I’m standing.
It’s not meant to be taken literally, but as a blatant hyperbole. The joke is referencing the fact that 2 ply toilet paper is notably softer than 1 ply toilet paper, and extrapolating that to the fictitious extreme of 10 ply toilet paper which, if possible, would be unbelievably soft. It’s from the show Letterkenny, as are a bunch of the other things people are commenting in response.
There was an anonymous statement by an employee that SpaceX basically has a small department whose entire purpose was to keep Musk distracted from anything important whenever he would get involved with “running” the company. Pretty sure the article I read that in said that they confirmed the employee’s identity and it would explain a lot about their surprisingly successful work.
Not at all. He’d still do the evil stuff that benefits him personally, or that he does out of spite, or that he does because it riles up his supporters. Honestly, he’d probably still do some things to benefit Putin for free too, just to help out someone he admires. Still, I think he’d do less (or at least different) evil stuff if no one had been willing to buy him.
What would be notably different, I think, would be the amount of “disrespect” he puts up with from his buyers. Elon hasn’t once been publicly deferential to Trump, when everyone else he’s working with has to toe the line very carefully or get fired
Yeah, bet she’s feeling really loved right now.
The name “change” hasn’t even been adopted by the United States own government, because the president does not have that authority. Congress granted that authority to the US Board of Geographic Names in 1890. I suppose Congress could rename it if they passed a bill that the president signed into law overriding that authority for that specific case, but until they did so, it’s not official.
Here is the link to the US Geographic Names Information system page showing the current official name of the Gulf of Mexico: https://edits.nationalmap.gov/apps/gaz-domestic/public/search/names/558730. Note the list of accepted variant names, which still doesn’t include “Gulf of America”.
I can and I will continue to make a fuss about it, but goddamn it, you’re not wrong. He really is.
We have the same thing as your prop 1 on the ballot in South Carolina. It’s already illegal at the state and federal level. It’s just on there to help get low information conservatives to the polls, since they are convinced the Democrats want to change the law to let “the illegals” vote.
They think this is what everyone does. They publicly virtue signal that they oppose whichever bad thing so they can condemn others for doing it while secretly doing it themselves. It’s ok when they do it themselves anyway, because they are good people doing a necessary thing for good reasons. When others find out about their behavior, their reaction is to accuse harder, because they assume we are all doing that too and they are angry that we didn’t get caught yet.
Right, but Qatar committed to treating those tourists as guests, and as far as I know, did exactly that, even easing some of their morality laws for the visitors. Attending the Qatar World Cup was unethical, but not stupidly self-endangering. Attending the World Cup in the US under the current situation is stupidly self-endangering, especially if you aren’t “white”, but also sometimes even then.