pfife

remember his commission about illegal voting that he had to try to prove that he won the popular vote and then they were disbanded b/c it was total trash

First Amendment ftw

More trash

that dude is trash

I'm buying but I'm always buying

Good guys with a gun are now fighting each other

it's awesome how much maga stuff falls apart if it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm recalling that amazing 1-62 record they had in 2020 election fraud cases.

Even Muellers old ass got convictions in court and he wasn't even really trying very hard What a trumpist shitshow

Lol Wow. Nice Durham prosecution

Barry is a really good show, I enjoy it. Are we talking about Obi Wan in here?

It's sad to me that they repeatedly blame mental illness and yet won't do anything about it. And that's a generous assessment. You can argue they actively make situations worse by defunding existing programs that address mental illness. I believe Abbot had recently done this. I'm not sure the extent "mental illness" plays in mass shootings and/or gun violence. But I do think we have a serious deficiency in policy regarding mental illness in this country and I welcome improvements in this space. Because they say "mental illness" and in best case assessment, do nothing about it, repeatedly - leads me to believe it's nothing but a bluff or a distraction.

the organization

The Federalist Papers really are super interesting. But they weren't ratified by anything other than a newspaper editor

I'm very much not in favor of our laws being beholden to compromises from 300 years ago meant to protect slavery. I also very much am not in favor of considering what people conjure up and call "the founding fathers' intentions" in legal jurisprudence. I also think the dudes that wrote it would say we overrate them.

I meant the operationalization of the column "ratified" in the chart of all of the national constitutions at the link on wikipedia. What I didn't know is if for all of those constitutions that date in that column meant a fresh document was adopted or if a current one was changed at that point. That it has 1788 as the date for america leads me to believe the column means when a new document was adopted for that nation, assuming one can generalize the meaning of the table column based on the contents on one of the rows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Constitution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Hungary

This is an interesting list of national constitutions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_constitutions Scrolling down the list, a lot of them are "ratified" much more recently than I would have thought. For instance, China's was ratified in 1982. I'm not sure what "ratified" means but they have 1788 as the date for the US.

I'd say they're both more overrated than in prior but same trajectory

There are definitely instances where constitutions change without overthrow. It happened in South Africa in the 90s. ETA: I also think there are some systems out there where changing the constitution is part of how the system works. Not amending, but changing it out.

The grandfather can testify that grandson had mental problems and that the house had multiple doors and that's what caused all of this

I saw this article and it made me think of you. Especially that time you argued gun owners are responsible with their guns.

The constitution is super overrated. So are the dudes that wrote it