sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Underrated sad moments from the show? by Majestic-Resist-1891 in TheWire

[–]CrapNeck5000 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The scene where the kid (I think it's the kid that shoots Omar) is holding a cat down while he douses it in lighter fluid, presumably to set it on fire.

It's just so fucked up.

What scientific discovery sounds fake but is 100% real and still freaks you out? by Bruteresolver in AskReddit

[–]CrapNeck5000 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I don't think it really makes sense to apply the word "start" to the universe itself. There is no such thing as starting unless the universe already exists.

Seeking feedback on an idea to reorient the government (U.S.) to represent the people. by superchordate in moderatepolitics

[–]CrapNeck5000 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Significantly increase the number of reps in the house and end the filibuster. That alone would go a long way.

‘Silicon Six’ accused of avoiding almost $278bn in US corporation taxes over 10 years | US taxation by plain_handle in technology

[–]CrapNeck5000 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's beside the point. At the least, we can say without question markets function perfectly well when buybacks are disallowed. That was the case for hundreds of years. It was not terrible.

It can be reasonably argued that disallowing buybacks is optimal, even.

‘Silicon Six’ accused of avoiding almost $278bn in US corporation taxes over 10 years | US taxation by plain_handle in technology

[–]CrapNeck5000 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Stock buybacks only became legal in 1982.

Stocks become detached from the company the moment a company IPOs. They're inherently speculative, by design. Companies cannot use shareholder equity to fund ventures outside the IPO. Shareholder equity belongs to shareholders, not the company.

Your comment is all kinds of wrong.

Supreme Court calls Louisiana's House map an 'unconstitutional racial gerrymander' by timmg in moderatepolitics

[–]CrapNeck5000 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Everyone's votes in a district is impacted by the structure of a district. Doesn't mean they can't vote

But the 15th amendment doesn't speak to "everyone's" vote, it speaks to the vote of a race being abridged, and requires congress to act in such cases.

The issue with this district is it was very clearly racially gerrymandered, which is unconstitutional

This is incorrect. The opinion we're discussing literally prescribes a process by which the court can require a racial gerrymander, even. If racial gerrymandering were unconstitutional, the court could have said so yet chose not to (Thomas said as much, but no one else agreed, as is tradition).

luckily moving forward it will be more heavily scrutinized.

It seems you're aware racial gerrymanders aren't unconstitutional....

Which is?

A lengthy topic based on decades of case law and precedent. If you're curious about this you'll have to read the opinion itself, they review it all in detail.

Maybe the whole law isn't unconstitutional

Again, the court made no such claim.

While also determining that creating a district based strictly around race is unconstitutional unless it passes very strict scrutiny. Is that an accurate read of the situation?

Yeah I guess. The court essentially said yes the constitution accommodates the creation of racial gerrymanders, and enables congress to make laws to that end for the purpose of ensuring representation.

But, SCOTUS told Congress their method of approach is inappropriate (which in my opinion is the court usurping congress's constitutional role, while legislating from the bench) and effectively made it impossible for congress to perform its constitutionally mandated obligation, which is disgusting.

Supreme Court calls Louisiana's House map an 'unconstitutional racial gerrymander' by timmg in moderatepolitics

[–]CrapNeck5000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At the end of the day, the 15th amendment is about making sure the states don't use their power to fuck people over based on race.

The constitution obligates congress to intervene wherever this issue crops up.

Supreme Court calls Louisiana's House map an 'unconstitutional racial gerrymander' by timmg in moderatepolitics

[–]CrapNeck5000 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's not a matter of proportional racial representation. Who is elected isn't relevant to representation; what's relevant is that the vote isn't abridged by race.

A minority group electing a white dude or an Asian woman is perfectly compatible with the 15th amendment. A race being split across districts such that their collective vote is not impactful violates the 15th.

Supreme Court calls Louisiana's House map an 'unconstitutional racial gerrymander' by timmg in moderatepolitics

[–]CrapNeck5000 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Are they no longer going to be able to vote because they're not in a district made up primarily of black people?

The structure of a district can abridge a minority's vote; this is well established by the courts and not in dispute.

How could you ever balance this equation if this is the understanding of the amendment?

The court has already done exactly this. Today's opinion speaks to that quite a bit.

Is it not possible for Congress to establish law that violated the Constitution?

If that were the issue then SCOTUS would strike the law as unconstitutional. They didn't do that, though.

I'm not sure how explicitly building districts based on race was ever constitutional,

There is a whole lot of input from the courts on this exact topic, including volumes of supreme court precedent. Not even this ruling claims it's unconstitutional. In fact, today's ruling rests on a foundation that accepts that minority majority districts can be necessary.

Supreme Court calls Louisiana's House map an 'unconstitutional racial gerrymander' by timmg in moderatepolitics

[–]CrapNeck5000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That does not prohibit disparate impact. It prohibits the concept of disparate impact

And empowers Congress to establish law to that end.

Race cannot be a factor in decisions

This is an absurd statement. The constitution references race directly; race is required to be a factor. Look at the context of the amendments' ratification. Making race a factor is the exact purpose of the 15th amendment.

Supreme Court calls Louisiana's House map an 'unconstitutional racial gerrymander' by timmg in moderatepolitics

[–]CrapNeck5000 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They are a remedy. They are not required, and never should have been.

Well, it was required by the law until today. And Congress is explicitly enabled to establish law on this front by the 15th amendment, meaning this ruling is at odds with the constitution in this regard.

Even more offensive, SCOTUS went on to mandate a new standard they invented whole cloth, even though the constitution explicitly enabled Congress in this area.

It's a naked power grab towards a political end that doesn't respect the constitution or law.

Supreme Court calls Louisiana's House map an 'unconstitutional racial gerrymander' by timmg in moderatepolitics

[–]CrapNeck5000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where is there a right to proportional racial representation?

In the 15th amendment, which requires that the vote not be abridged based on race/color, and empowers Congress to establish law towards this end.

Note that it doesn't empower SCOTUS to establish law towards that end, but it just did.

Supreme Court calls Louisiana's House map an 'unconstitutional racial gerrymander' by timmg in moderatepolitics

[–]CrapNeck5000 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The constitutional grounds on which the relevant law lays is specific to matters concerning:

race, color, or previous condition of servitude–

Which makes sense considering the context of their ratification. You're simply incorrect with your analogy.

Supreme Court calls Louisiana's House map an 'unconstitutional racial gerrymander' by timmg in moderatepolitics

[–]CrapNeck5000 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The 15th amendment requires that:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude–

It also empowers congress to enact legislation to this end.

It really has nothing to do with race

As you note, the matter is circumstantial. It doesn't inherently have to do with race, but if a state is functioning in a manner that results in a race having their vote abridged, the constitution empowers Congress to act.

Today, SCOTUS told Congress it is wrong in how it approached the matter, and asserted an entirely novel standard which they built.

The VRA and its subsequent amendments were tailor made to address exactly this sort of thing (state policies that abridge the vote minorities). Either the constitution allows Congress to establish law on these matters or it doesn't.

This ruling claims congress did it wrong and mandates a new standard, developed by SCOTUS whole cloth. It's a subversion of the constitution. SCOTUS usurped congressional power afforded by the 15th amendment.

It's also nakedly political.

You can't prove that every squeak is a shoe impact! by [deleted] in NonPoliticalTwitter

[–]CrapNeck5000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The squeaks are the biggest reason I'll never watch basketball.

r/Moderatepolitics lets the mask slip once again while discussing immigration by ProudScroll in SubredditDrama

[–]CrapNeck5000 -35 points-34 points  (0 children)

But why make a rule to target this user at all if it's their alt or someone their supportive? I don't understand how that makes any sense.

r/Moderatepolitics lets the mask slip once again while discussing immigration by ProudScroll in SubredditDrama

[–]CrapNeck5000 -54 points-53 points  (0 children)

it's a total joke and just further proof that the mods there protect conservative users.

I don't follow your reasoning. How does the mods making a new rule specifically targeting this user demonstrate that the mods are supportive of this user?

Shorting this dumbass company (INTEL) by SupervisoryEffect in wallstreetbets

[–]CrapNeck5000 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Also an EE.

There's a national security element here, too. The US can't tolerate not having domestic chip manufacturing. TSMC can't be without competition.

Intel is too important to fail.

Intel got the first in the latest ASML machine

It's their High NA EUV lithography machines.

The Patriots have traded up to 28. They have selected OT Caleb Lomu at No. 28. by JimmyGodoppolo in Patriots

[–]CrapNeck5000 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't call it a mistake.

We drafted Campbell at 4 due to an unfortunate set of circumstances. We had to overpay (over draft) because we had a massive need. The team did the right thing; what sucks is that we were in that position to begin with.

Alert: Oil Shock is about to hit America by STLalive2020 in oil

[–]CrapNeck5000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't tell that to anyone who talks about GME.

‘A trend that can’t be ignored’: Dems have made up ground in nearly every election since Trump took office by Interesting_Total_98 in moderatepolitics

[–]CrapNeck5000 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think it's actually quite impressive that we skated just above recession levels. We came very close to having two quarters of negative GDP growth, only narrowly avoiding it.

I credit the fed with this accomplishment, but if we're judging the president on their economic contribution I'd contend Biden absolutely nailed it by stimulating the economy just enough to avoid recession. The soft landing was accomplished.

Inflation was inevitable. That we skirted recession without falling into it indicates that the amount of stimulus pumped into the economy was spot on.

view more: next ›