@drunkenlobster.bsky.social
I used to post on Twitter. Now I just block ass hats.
I vote to name it CenterMcCenter Face. I too have the same power over Congress to rename it.
December 18, 2025 at 6:51 PM
I vote to name it CenterMcCenter Face. I too have the same power over Congress to rename it.
Unless this report talks about the enormous right-wing propaganda network the right has built over decades, and how Dems will counter that and get their message out, it is a worthless report anyway.
December 18, 2025 at 6:43 PM
Unless this report talks about the enormous right-wing propaganda network the right has built over decades, and how Dems will counter that and get their message out, it is a worthless report anyway.
These are important Constitutional questions, but we won't have time to consider them until there is a Democrat in the White House. So until that time, here is a shadow docket order giving deference to the executive branch.
By Samuel Alito
By Samuel Alito
December 18, 2025 at 4:34 PM
These are important Constitutional questions, but we won't have time to consider them until there is a Democrat in the White House. So until that time, here is a shadow docket order giving deference to the executive branch.
By Samuel Alito
By Samuel Alito
Ignoring for a moment the problem with "they" here....
Russia has been doing comparable things
1. Illegal occupation of adjacent territory
2. 2+ years of ethnic cleansing
3. Moving Russians into settlements in occupied territory
Etc
Russia has been doing comparable things
1. Illegal occupation of adjacent territory
2. 2+ years of ethnic cleansing
3. Moving Russians into settlements in occupied territory
Etc
December 18, 2025 at 3:16 PM
Ignoring for a moment the problem with "they" here....
Russia has been doing comparable things
1. Illegal occupation of adjacent territory
2. 2+ years of ethnic cleansing
3. Moving Russians into settlements in occupied territory
Etc
Russia has been doing comparable things
1. Illegal occupation of adjacent territory
2. 2+ years of ethnic cleansing
3. Moving Russians into settlements in occupied territory
Etc
Well I'll take you at your word then, but I think the reality is whoever controls Congress would ultimately decide what it means, regardless of the work you did or the precedent set.
December 18, 2025 at 4:10 AM
Well I'll take you at your word then, but I think the reality is whoever controls Congress would ultimately decide what it means, regardless of the work you did or the precedent set.
You mignt be right about abstentions, but you are not right about disqualified votes. If electors vote for Trump and Congress disqualifies them, they do NOT count towards the total appointed electors.
December 18, 2025 at 3:24 AM
You mignt be right about abstentions, but you are not right about disqualified votes. If electors vote for Trump and Congress disqualifies them, they do NOT count towards the total appointed electors.
I guess they could be treated as faithless electors, but with no name on the ballot.
Fortunately most States dont allow this :)
Fortunately most States dont allow this :)
December 18, 2025 at 2:44 AM
I guess they could be treated as faithless electors, but with no name on the ballot.
Fortunately most States dont allow this :)
Fortunately most States dont allow this :)
1788 was the election where New York failed to send any votes and they also were not counted towards the total.
But that predates the 12th amendment.
So I concede you are right, and abstained votes are still ambiguous :/
But that predates the 12th amendment.
So I concede you are right, and abstained votes are still ambiguous :/
December 18, 2025 at 2:41 AM
1788 was the election where New York failed to send any votes and they also were not counted towards the total.
But that predates the 12th amendment.
So I concede you are right, and abstained votes are still ambiguous :/
But that predates the 12th amendment.
So I concede you are right, and abstained votes are still ambiguous :/
They actually rejected several votes for Grant. More importantly they established that those votes did not count towards the total number of electors appointed.
However that does not count as precedent for no votes as all.
However that does not count as precedent for no votes as all.
December 18, 2025 at 2:40 AM
They actually rejected several votes for Grant. More importantly they established that those votes did not count towards the total number of electors appointed.
However that does not count as precedent for no votes as all.
However that does not count as precedent for no votes as all.
That would conflict with historical precedent, but you are right. I misrememberd the exact text of 3usc
December 18, 2025 at 2:32 AM
That would conflict with historical precedent, but you are right. I misrememberd the exact text of 3usc
Agreed on 3USC.
I posted about 1872 a lot back in 2020 when one Twitter arguing with ass hats about what Congress could and could not do. But since then I closed down my Twitter account. I can try to find it again sometime.
Also irrelevant since Congress must choose a vote getter.
I posted about 1872 a lot back in 2020 when one Twitter arguing with ass hats about what Congress could and could not do. But since then I closed down my Twitter account. I can try to find it again sometime.
Also irrelevant since Congress must choose a vote getter.
December 18, 2025 at 2:30 AM
Agreed on 3USC.
I posted about 1872 a lot back in 2020 when one Twitter arguing with ass hats about what Congress could and could not do. But since then I closed down my Twitter account. I can try to find it again sometime.
Also irrelevant since Congress must choose a vote getter.
I posted about 1872 a lot back in 2020 when one Twitter arguing with ass hats about what Congress could and could not do. But since then I closed down my Twitter account. I can try to find it again sometime.
Also irrelevant since Congress must choose a vote getter.
Read the Congression record. Congress very explicitly says it.
If your point is that a Republican Congress can choose to just ignore all the rules and do whatever they want and Scotus will calvinball it into existence, sure I guess?
If your point is that a Republican Congress can choose to just ignore all the rules and do whatever they want and Scotus will calvinball it into existence, sure I guess?
December 18, 2025 at 2:23 AM
Read the Congression record. Congress very explicitly says it.
If your point is that a Republican Congress can choose to just ignore all the rules and do whatever they want and Scotus will calvinball it into existence, sure I guess?
If your point is that a Republican Congress can choose to just ignore all the rules and do whatever they want and Scotus will calvinball it into existence, sure I guess?
Man I hope youre right.
December 18, 2025 at 2:18 AM
Man I hope youre right.
I guess if Republicans control Congress they can decide to change the rules and ignore precedent causing mass chaos, so don't let that happen!
December 18, 2025 at 2:14 AM
I guess if Republicans control Congress they can decide to change the rules and ignore precedent causing mass chaos, so don't let that happen!
He is completely wrong. If all the Republican electors abstain, the Democrat candidate will win unanimously as that candidate will have won a majority of electoral votes received. If a state sends no votes, they don't count towards the total. See 1789 and 1873, as well as 3U.S.C
December 18, 2025 at 2:05 AM
He is completely wrong. If all the Republican electors abstain, the Democrat candidate will win unanimously as that candidate will have won a majority of electoral votes received. If a state sends no votes, they don't count towards the total. See 1789 and 1873, as well as 3U.S.C
"In the future we won't need money," says man who threatened to have a tantrum if he did not receive a trillion dollar pay package.
December 18, 2025 at 12:49 AM
"In the future we won't need money," says man who threatened to have a tantrum if he did not receive a trillion dollar pay package.
Nah. He just wants a colony.
December 17, 2025 at 9:56 PM
Nah. He just wants a colony.
Makes me uncomfortable to blame anyone but the antisemite, but I at least think we reached an understanding.
December 17, 2025 at 9:55 PM
Makes me uncomfortable to blame anyone but the antisemite, but I at least think we reached an understanding.
Me: Nah. America does not actually engage in imperialism these days.
Wife: MFer the president and his staff literally said Venezuela's resources belong to the US, and we are about to fight them for it.
Me:.... you're right of course.
Wife: of course I am.
Wife: MFer the president and his staff literally said Venezuela's resources belong to the US, and we are about to fight them for it.
Me:.... you're right of course.
Wife: of course I am.
December 17, 2025 at 9:25 PM
Me: Nah. America does not actually engage in imperialism these days.
Wife: MFer the president and his staff literally said Venezuela's resources belong to the US, and we are about to fight them for it.
Me:.... you're right of course.
Wife: of course I am.
Wife: MFer the president and his staff literally said Venezuela's resources belong to the US, and we are about to fight them for it.
Me:.... you're right of course.
Wife: of course I am.
It is because anti semites feel emboldened to act on their feelings. Anytime some world event happens that emboldens an anti semite (or an Islamophobe, or a racist) etc, expect the targets of that PREEXISTING bigotry to suffer.
December 17, 2025 at 9:16 PM
It is because anti semites feel emboldened to act on their feelings. Anytime some world event happens that emboldens an anti semite (or an Islamophobe, or a racist) etc, expect the targets of that PREEXISTING bigotry to suffer.
No. You're still not getting it. It isnt "some". It is "all". If you collectively blame Jews for the actions of Israel, then you were antisemitic before those actions.
Therefore it follows that if you commit an act of antisemitism in response to the actions of Israel, you were already antisemitic
Therefore it follows that if you commit an act of antisemitism in response to the actions of Israel, you were already antisemitic
December 17, 2025 at 8:26 PM
No. You're still not getting it. It isnt "some". It is "all". If you collectively blame Jews for the actions of Israel, then you were antisemitic before those actions.
Therefore it follows that if you commit an act of antisemitism in response to the actions of Israel, you were already antisemitic
Therefore it follows that if you commit an act of antisemitism in response to the actions of Israel, you were already antisemitic
No. It is not wrong to assume that. Why?
Because in order to assume some Jewish guy in Australia is to blame for actions of Israel you must first be antisemitic.
The antisemitism MUST predate the actions of Israel because only antisemitism explains collective blame of Jews.
Because in order to assume some Jewish guy in Australia is to blame for actions of Israel you must first be antisemitic.
The antisemitism MUST predate the actions of Israel because only antisemitism explains collective blame of Jews.
December 17, 2025 at 7:53 PM
No. It is not wrong to assume that. Why?
Because in order to assume some Jewish guy in Australia is to blame for actions of Israel you must first be antisemitic.
The antisemitism MUST predate the actions of Israel because only antisemitism explains collective blame of Jews.
Because in order to assume some Jewish guy in Australia is to blame for actions of Israel you must first be antisemitic.
The antisemitism MUST predate the actions of Israel because only antisemitism explains collective blame of Jews.
"partly blaming rise in anti-semitism on world’s reaction to Israel’s genocide"
This shows that the world has an anti semitism problem. Agree?
This shows that the world has an anti semitism problem. Agree?
December 17, 2025 at 7:30 PM
"partly blaming rise in anti-semitism on world’s reaction to Israel’s genocide"
This shows that the world has an anti semitism problem. Agree?
This shows that the world has an anti semitism problem. Agree?
And before someone (rightfully) calls me out, yes other ethnicities have received collective blame for the actions of a few. That is despicable and reinforces my point that it is antisemitism is the driving factor of Jews receiving collective blame.
December 17, 2025 at 7:07 PM
And before someone (rightfully) calls me out, yes other ethnicities have received collective blame for the actions of a few. That is despicable and reinforces my point that it is antisemitism is the driving factor of Jews receiving collective blame.