Jump to content

US Politics: In A Hypocritical Condition


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Gertrude said:

I was talking to my mom - who is kind and sweet and wouldn't say shit if her mouth was full of it - and she was telling me about how she lies to the pollsters who call her. Fox has turned her into a troll.

Hopefully there isn't some sort of reverse Tik-Tok agreement among seniors where they agree to lie to pollsters.

(I am joking, but I think the fraction of people giving misleading answers on these polls should be pretty low)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump's been Dexamethasone tweeting like mad, every few minutes for an hour or so. If the Rona doesn't get him, perhaps he'll stroke out or have a heart attack or something.

puffs_cheeks.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL. His tweets: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/vote-trump-attempts-to-campaign-from-the-hospital-with-deranged-tweets

"PROTECT PREEXISTING CONDITIONS. VOTE!"

Still lying about that, huh.

ETA: Can't he be sued for exposing people to the virus after knowing about Hicks? (Or possibly after knowing he was positive.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't he be sued for exposing people

you can sue anyone for anything.  first, however, mere exposure to some other infected person is likely to be, without more, not considered an injury--and therefore the claimant will lack standing unless they can show their own actual infection.  an asshole court may require an infection that causes discernible harm, also--symptoms, treatment, loss of earnings, and so on.

the question then becomes whether he is immune--sovereign, head of state, exclusive remedy in FECA, probably other theories.   if the defendant loses its immunity argument at any point, the question is usually immediately appealable (e.g., at the rule 12(b) and rule 56 stages pre-trial)--this becomes a total time waster from a plaintiff's perspective.  

if immunity is overcome, the injured person would need to prove causation (trump as the actual infectious agent of the claimant's disease) as well as overcome other affirmative defenses--assumption of risk seems particularly salient in claims brought by other virus deniers. 

all that said, third parties might try FTCA claims against him.  they'd need to make demand on the responsible agency first.  assuming there's no immunity, i'd love to handle a claim like that--get el presidente under oath in deposition--who wouldn't want that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kalibear and you'd have to expect Roe v Wade to follow if they succeed at rolling that back. It's not like they get satisfied in victory and stop with what they've got, success will just embolden them.

Invalidating 5 years of marriages is going to be a cluster fuck as well. 

I'm just going to hope this bout of illness has managed to derail all their plans and y'all step back from the brink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That didn't look like "working on documents." That looked like a screaming kid belted into the child's seat and being driven around in the vain hope it would finally shut up and go to sleep.

As far as the states controlling abortion -- that is the effective condition already, and has been for some years by now.  There are many states where it is nearly impossible to even find a place to receive this essential procedure for women's health -- or even to get pre-natal and post-natal care.  To access such basic medical a woman must drive hundreds of miles -- because there isn't any public transportation available either. Don't own a car? shyte outta luck.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Mindwalker said:

Now I'm starting to think it's fake. Either his having it, or maybe it was someone else in the car, spreading the, uh, love.

Of course, I'm just one of these "cynical foreigners", as someone upthread so nicely put it, so what do I know.

I can totally see Trump faking it to show people it's a hoax. The issue is I don't think the docs would go along with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

They can't really invalidate marriages already legally performed

If the marriages happened in states that have anti- same-sex marriage statutes that were superceded by Obergefell, I think they might be able to invalidate those marriages. There will be lawsuits, for sure, but I think there is a real danger to queer couples outside of the states where equal marriage rights are enshrined in state law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

If the marriages happened in states that have anti- same-sex marriage statutes that were superceded by Obergefell, I think they might be able to invalidate those marriages. There will be lawsuits, for sure, but I think there is a real danger to queer couples outside of the states where equal marriage rights are enshrined in state law. 

I hope we never have to put that to the test and that Democrats will work aggressively on the court when they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

Hey @sologdin remember how I said gay marriage is going bye bye

Of course Thomas and Alito want to overturn Obergefell - they voted against Obergefell.  They still denied cert to that nut Davis' latest appeal.  Not sure what you're claiming credit for here?  I agree Obergefell is just as at risk as Roe, but Thomas rambling doesn't have any substantive relevance to that.  It's pretty cute though when you get all puffed up like a legend in your own mind.  Who's a good puppy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...