First claiming any source to the right of The Washington Times is "fake", then the strawmen, now moving the goal posts.
If you really want to continue such a discussion, I'd like to hear you acknowledge that non-citizens clearly do vote in elections. If you can't do that, you clearly want to simply argue with a viewpoint of essentialism, and will deny anything based on it.
If you can't verify then you don't even know whether the number is greater than zero!
I already know the number is greater than zero, and provided the citations. Can you tell me what the maximum number is? If so, please do so.
Trump is your president, you're going to have to own everything he does. People like you are the reason he's there. Whatever happens, it's because of people like you who believe in lies and then turn around and try to spread them yourself. It's actually rather deplorable, but it doesn't inspire rage in me. Only sadness.
I was never a Trump supporter, but his election has provided one benefit for me: seeing the rage and sadness of people like you. Not to mention the barrage of hypocrisy.
But, hey, "millions of illegal immigrants voting in California" hits several buttons.
It's easy to bring up this straw man to knock down, isn't it? Something that I never claimed was true. But keep ranting. I can just imagine the spittle dripping down your chin as you spout your rage at the screen.
Nobody cares. California only votes Democrat, so no one is going to put resources into investigating
I can only find instances from Illinois and Ohio. Although the LA Times reported back in 2002 that non-citizens testified that they voted in the Compton, CA mayor's race.
9th--The California Secretary of State announced that an
INS analysis of 1,100 persons enrolled in Hermandad citizenship
classes had discovered 490 documented non-citizens who
registered to vote in CA 46. Of these, 303 actually voted
illegally in CA 46, and 69 individuals had no record in INS
files.
But those investigations just don't happen very often, because most California elections so rarely matter.
an approach that the NRDC says fosters innovation.
So, similar to the EPA's fuel additive mandate for a compound that is unavailable to anyone, claiming a mandate "fosters innovation" is actually newspeak for "They're going to have to invent something that doesn't exist right now." The feasibility and cost of which is not even considered.
So now not only do I have to leave the state to keep guns I've legally purchased, I have to leave to keep my fucking computer as well?
I use VMWare for energy efficiency. Sure, that box and the storage NAS use a ton of power. But when you divide by the 15 "computers" it is running, it's super-efficient!
As usual for Snopes, they are not answering the question, they have created a straw man instead. "While California did pass a law to increase voter turnout, the state has not made it legal for undocumented people to vote." That's not the issue. At all. Snopes likes creating straw men because they are easy to knock down. They don't address the automatic registration at all. That's why people shouldn't be citing Snopes - it's a biased and useless source.
You're welcome to call the California Secretary of State's office and ask them about their verification procedures. (916) 653-6814
You could just go and read the bill. There is literally no information from the DMV to the Secretary that could be used to confirm citizenship other than that the person did not "opt out" of registration. And section (e) provides no requirement for the Secretary to do so. The "confirmation" is that the person applying for the driver's license knows the law and opted out if they know they are not allow to vote. That's it.
You are a denier of facts, floating in a cesspool of Fake News and an echo chamber full of confirmation bias.
question number 2: how many illegal voters have actually been added?
As mentioned, the DMV records intentionally do not specify whether a license holder is a citizen or not, so it would be difficult number to determine, wouldn't it? And somehow you acknowledge the issue, but expect me to find the numbers for you. It doesn't really matter, because California is so far out on the left they will only vote for Democrats anyway - so no one is going to care how many of those votes come from illegals (hint: the number is greater than 1), and no one is going to go to any effort to find out.
Your ad hominem attacks, uninspired name-calling, extremist rhetoric and claims of false equivalency in Fake News sources are unpersuasive, and the vitriolic hatred for "others" of some stripe indicates an unwillingness to engage in critical thinking or rational discussion on your part.
In California, however, state officials “specifically chose not to make noncitizen license holders searchable in their DMV database,” said True the Vote spokesman Logan Churchwell, who called the newly signed bill “unprecedented.”
The measure, Assembly Bill 1461, “will effectively change the form of governance in California from a Republic whose elected officials are determined by United States citizens and will guarantee that noncitizens will participate in all California elections going forward,” Election Integrity Project of California President Linda Paine said in a statement.
I didn't make up anything, it's how the CA system works now. That doesn't mean they are legally allowed to vote, but they are registered, and there is nothing stopping them from voting.
Yeah, I haven't figured this one out ether. Coal is abundant but is a horrible source of energy. It's also on the way out. The only way I can think of him getting all the miner to working again is to export coal to other countries. This is something I'm against completely. Taking our problems and shipping them to other countries for a profit.
Well why not? We shipped all our dirty manufacturing to Chiner so we could buy cheap crap from Walmart. We exported our brand of fomenting civil war and violent regime change to the Middle East. We exported our GMO seeds to South America and India, virtually eliminating the indigenous crops and the ability of farmers to grow their own seed. And we've exported our nuclear arsenal to Europe so NATO can point them at Russia and anyone else we want to intimidate. What's one more dirty export?
Exactly. So Donald Trump can admit he was making up crap about it when he protested that he won the popular vote if not for the illegals.
Why should he? There are 2 counties that make up the "popular vote" difference: Cook County (home of Chicago, Illinois, famous for widespread corruption and credible accusations of voter fraud), and Los Angeles County, a "sanctuary city" with lots of illegal immigrants, lots of whom are given driver's licenses, and are automatically registered to vote by the CA DMV.
Is that proof that there were "millions" of illegal votes? No, of course not. But there is no way to prove otherwise.
Yes, I'm sure they didn't release RNC & Trump's emails for no reason at all.
Well, except perhaps blackmail.
Probably because they didn't actually have them. Oh, some "unnamed, anonymous source" from the CIA said they did. Or at least some New York Times "journalist" says a "source" from the CIA claimed that. It must be true, right?
Except the FBI, publicly and using their real names checked out the RNC's systems and found no evidence they had been hacked.
Your entire premise is based on FAKE NEWS! From the New York Times.
It's sure to drop further once he repeals health care.
Why would you assume that? The correlation is that since Obamacare caused life expectancy has dropped for the first time since 1993. If it's repealed, maybe it will start going back up.
Because the dominant culture is European and it has systematically sought to destroy other cultures through war, colonization, subjugation, forced assimilation, and economic coercion?
Well now that is a cogent and reasonable argument, thank you.
However, you didn't cite any source to the claim that the Weather Channel has climate scientists on staff, or what their credentials or peer-reviewed papers may have been or said. The Post article (hit piece, really, but that's expected) quotes the current CEO of TWC, David Kenny, provides some glowing praise of his staff, but it's just an attempt to distance the company from Coleman's statements (might be bad for business). There is nothing there that justifies TWC or their meteorologists (and, yes, "people that look good on TV") as authorities on climate change.
Nope. They are both meteorologists. Both backed by meteorological science. You can argue that Coleman has more experience and credentials in the field than the younger meteorologists working for the weather center. But that's it. You accept both as an authority or neither.
To only accept one as an authority and not the other is nothing but confirmation bias on your part.
Sort of like the confirmation bias that immediately buried my comments regarding this hypocrisy.
So you make a case that a _reporter_ of weather is a climate sceptic and dismiss all the _researchers_ of weather and climate that says otherwise.
I cannot see why we should listen to John Coleman based on his credentials.
Then why are you listening to the Weather Channel, which has credentials even less impressive than John Coleman. That's the point. What makes the less experienced meteorologists at the Weather Channel a better authority than the more experienced and awarded meteorologist that founded it?
then our democracy truly is dead. We aren't there yet. I still have hope, but any government that relies on propaganda to gain and hold power is the opposite of a democracy, and that is the road we are traveling toward.
"Traveling toward"? Really? Take a look in the rear view mirror, buddy, that fork in the road is WAY back behind you. You've been on the road for a LONG time!
It's funny because John Coleman, the co-founder of the Weather Channel, and winner of the American Meteorological -- that's a tough one -- Meteorological Society's award for broadcast meteorologist of the year spent more than 60 years reporting on the weather, and he is incensed that the station he started has decided to use it's platform for spreading propaganda about global warming.
He was so upset about the claims of manmade global warming that he wrote a letter to the UCLA's Hammer Museum for their forum that was called Tackling Climate Change. He said "You don't have both sides represented, and I'm here to tell you that manmade global climate change is a myth."
A few choice quotes from John Coleman:
You know, a climate skeptic can rarely get on TV, ever since Al Gore made it a plank of the Democratic Party. This is a tough go for people who don't believe in climate change. A lot study on this.
Well, it's very difficult for anybody to be against it [manmade climate change] because the media has told the nation over and over again, day after day for 20 years that the oceans are rising, the polar bears are dying, the sea -- the ice is melting, the storms are going to sweep the earth and that we're all gonna die of a heat wave. I mean, this is an incredible bad, bad science.
There are 9,000 PhDs and 31 scientists who have signed the petition that says [CO2] is not a significant greenhouse gas. Oh, it's small itsy bitsy but in greenhouse gas but it's not in any ways significant. And we are sure of it. It's not like, something I made up or just thought of. I've studied and studied and studied.
And Roger Revelle, the great scientist who wrote that paper back in 1957 with Hans Suess changed his mind a decade later and said, Wait a minute, I think we were wrong. Don't anybody panic. I don't think there's any global warming." And that's when Al Gore said he was senile.
Al Gore had one class in science. Roger Revelle taught it to him. He got a D and yet he's made a billion dollars off to climate change. Shame on you Al Gore.
The sky is falling. ‘Climate Change’ is running wild and disaster is certain unless we immediately stop burning coal and oil and move quickly to ‘green energy’ to eliminate use of fossil fuels. Heat waves, huge floods, powerful storms, droughts and rising seas are on the verge of killing millions of us and destroying our civilization. That is my summary of the new Federal Assessment of Climate Change issued by a Obama administration team of more than 300 specialists guided by a 60-member federal advisory committee produced the report I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk.
So the Weather Channel is upset that Breitbart is using it's video - AFTER PAYING FOR IT - to illustrate his stories. And the founder of the Weather Channel is upset that the media network he created is being used for things HE doesn't agree with.
Par for the course. And the usual suspects praise the Weather Channel for championing the AGW catechism, but they are no more of an authority on the issue than the very founder of that channel, who is excoriated for having an opinion.
Feel free to cite other authorities that were involved in crafting the Constitution to refute that. But you won't be able to.
The original authorities involved in crafting the constitution are no longer around. Instead, we have constitutional scholars and supreme court justices. They know a lot more than some angry internet dude yelling for less government until he loses something. Fact: until SCOTUS says otherwise, DoEd is constitutional.
Well they haven't ruled either way, so we can't say that. We can say that it's assumed to be Constitutional until there is a challenge, but that's about all. The real fact is that it's a huge useless waste of billions of dollars in taxpayer funding, and that public education has only gotten worse since it was established.
I disagree on your "real fact." Without public education the great majority of people in this country would be MUCH worse off. Do you really want countless millions of illiterate people around you?
That has nothing to do with the Federal Department of Education. At all. NOTHING. We had public education before 1979, and we will have it after that useless waste of money is disbanded and nothing but a bad memory, and it will likely thrive without the boots of Common Core and No Child Left Behind and other disasters stamping on the face of responsible educators trying to help the children succeed.
That is, your idiotic straw man is just that: an idiotic straw man.
Feel free to cite other authorities that were involved in crafting the Constitution to refute that. But you won't be able to.
The original authorities involved in crafting the constitution are no longer around. Instead, we have constitutional scholars and supreme court justices. They know a lot more than some angry internet dude yelling for less government until he loses something. Fact: until SCOTUS says otherwise, DoEd is constitutional.
Well they haven't ruled either way, so we can't say that. We can say that it's assumed to be Constitutional until there is a challenge, but that's about all. The real fact is that it's a huge useless waste of billions of dollars in taxpayer funding, and that public education has only gotten worse since it was established.
This, combined with the fact that the ruling banned the pamphlet, i.e. restricted free speech, would seem to belie what you're saying.
You're quoting an opinion that was (rightly) overturned. In 1969, the Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio replaced it with the "imminent lawless action" test, one that protects a broader range of speech. This test states that the government may only limit speech that incites unlawful action sooner than the police can arrive to prevent that action.
"General Welfare" does NOT provide ANY powers to the Federal government above and beyond the enumerated powers. Because the Federal government is limited. If you just point to the "General Welfare" clause and claim it provides powers, you're saying that the Federal government power is unlimited. Full stop.
Feel free to cite other authorities that were involved in crafting the Constitution to refute that. But you won't be able to.
Like that nut who recently shot up the sandwich shop, because fake news made it seem like they were doing human trafficking from those Evil Democrats.
Other than blind censoring where the radicalized people just discuss off the grid, and build up their anger from not feeling the ability to speak their believes. I would like to find some way to flag truthfulness of stories. So we can get a good idea on the nature of the story.
Well, you can start by not embellishing stories to make a point. The guy that went into Comet Ping Pong fired one shot into the floor, which is bad enough, but your description made it sound like he did lots of damage with multiple gunshots. Should your post be censored as "fake news"? I would flag it "mostly true", since he did fire a shot inside the place. 7 out of 10 for truthfulness, but still misleading.
Unfortunately I think you'd be hard pressed to find much that fits into the "News - Validated: News with validated facts" category, even using mainstream sources. They send out LOTS of stuff with nothing to back it up but some vague "sources say" statement, indicating some anonymous statement from who-knows-who, far from anything "validated". How long did the story about Libyan soldier using viagra to rape thousands of women before it was outed as bullshit?
Slashdot Mirror
First claiming any source to the right of The Washington Times is "fake", then the strawmen, now moving the goal posts.
If you really want to continue such a discussion, I'd like to hear you acknowledge that non-citizens clearly do vote in elections. If you can't do that, you clearly want to simply argue with a viewpoint of essentialism, and will deny anything based on it.
If you can't verify then you don't even know whether the number is greater than zero!
I already know the number is greater than zero, and provided the citations. Can you tell me what the maximum number is? If so, please do so.
Trump is your president, you're going to have to own everything he does. People like you are the reason he's there. Whatever happens, it's because of people like you who believe in lies and then turn around and try to spread them yourself. It's actually rather deplorable, but it doesn't inspire rage in me. Only sadness.
I was never a Trump supporter, but his election has provided one benefit for me: seeing the rage and sadness of people like you. Not to mention the barrage of hypocrisy.
But, hey, "millions of illegal immigrants voting in California" hits several buttons.
It's easy to bring up this straw man to knock down, isn't it? Something that I never claimed was true. But keep ranting. I can just imagine the spittle dripping down your chin as you spout your rage at the screen.
Lastly, where is the investigation in California?
Nobody cares. California only votes Democrat, so no one is going to put resources into investigating
I can only find instances from Illinois and Ohio. Although the LA Times reported back in 2002 that non-citizens testified that they voted in the Compton, CA mayor's race.
There was the US House Oversight Committee report which reported that:
But those investigations just don't happen very often, because most California elections so rarely matter.
an approach that the NRDC says fosters innovation.
So, similar to the EPA's fuel additive mandate for a compound that is unavailable to anyone, claiming a mandate "fosters innovation" is actually newspeak for "They're going to have to invent something that doesn't exist right now." The feasibility and cost of which is not even considered.
So now not only do I have to leave the state to keep guns I've legally purchased, I have to leave to keep my fucking computer as well?
I use VMWare for energy efficiency. Sure, that box and the storage NAS use a ton of power. But when you divide by the 15 "computers" it is running, it's super-efficient!
Except for not being registered [snopes.com].
As usual for Snopes, they are not answering the question, they have created a straw man instead. "While California did pass a law to increase voter turnout, the state has not made it legal for undocumented people to vote." That's not the issue. At all. Snopes likes creating straw men because they are easy to knock down. They don't address the automatic registration at all. That's why people shouldn't be citing Snopes - it's a biased and useless source.
You're welcome to call the California Secretary of State's office and ask them about their verification procedures. (916) 653-6814
You could just go and read the bill. There is literally no information from the DMV to the Secretary that could be used to confirm citizenship other than that the person did not "opt out" of registration. And section (e) provides no requirement for the Secretary to do so. The "confirmation" is that the person applying for the driver's license knows the law and opted out if they know they are not allow to vote. That's it.
In fact, the Secretary does not now and has never verified voter eligibility. That's entirely the responsibility of the counties. Like Los Angeles County. Which apparently requires proof of citizenship for a marriage license, but only an "affirmation" for voter registration.
You are a denier of facts, floating in a cesspool of Fake News and an echo chamber full of confirmation bias.
question number 2: how many illegal voters have actually been added?
As mentioned, the DMV records intentionally do not specify whether a license holder is a citizen or not, so it would be difficult number to determine, wouldn't it? And somehow you acknowledge the issue, but expect me to find the numbers for you. It doesn't really matter, because California is so far out on the left they will only vote for Democrats anyway - so no one is going to care how many of those votes come from illegals (hint: the number is greater than 1), and no one is going to go to any effort to find out.
Your ad hominem attacks, uninspired name-calling, extremist rhetoric and claims of false equivalency in Fake News sources are unpersuasive, and the vitriolic hatred for "others" of some stripe indicates an unwillingness to engage in critical thinking or rational discussion on your part.
Good day, sir!
lots of whom are given driver's licenses, and are automatically registered to vote by the CA DMV.
See, you make up shit yourself. They aren't registered to vote, no matter how much you want to believe that fairy tale.
Here is your reference.
I didn't make up anything, it's how the CA system works now. That doesn't mean they are legally allowed to vote, but they are registered, and there is nothing stopping them from voting.
Yeah, I haven't figured this one out ether. Coal is abundant but is a horrible source of energy. It's also on the way out. The only way I can think of him getting all the miner to working again is to export coal to other countries. This is something I'm against completely. Taking our problems and shipping them to other countries for a profit.
Well why not? We shipped all our dirty manufacturing to Chiner so we could buy cheap crap from Walmart. We exported our brand of fomenting civil war and violent regime change to the Middle East. We exported our GMO seeds to South America and India, virtually eliminating the indigenous crops and the ability of farmers to grow their own seed. And we've exported our nuclear arsenal to Europe so NATO can point them at Russia and anyone else we want to intimidate. What's one more dirty export?
Exactly. So Donald Trump can admit he was making up crap about it when he protested that he won the popular vote if not for the illegals.
Why should he? There are 2 counties that make up the "popular vote" difference: Cook County (home of Chicago, Illinois, famous for widespread corruption and credible accusations of voter fraud), and Los Angeles County, a "sanctuary city" with lots of illegal immigrants, lots of whom are given driver's licenses, and are automatically registered to vote by the CA DMV.
Is that proof that there were "millions" of illegal votes? No, of course not. But there is no way to prove otherwise.
Yes, I'm sure they didn't release RNC & Trump's emails for no reason at all.
Well, except perhaps blackmail.
Probably because they didn't actually have them. Oh, some "unnamed, anonymous source" from the CIA said they did. Or at least some New York Times "journalist" says a "source" from the CIA claimed that. It must be true, right?
Except the FBI, publicly and using their real names checked out the RNC's systems and found no evidence they had been hacked.
Your entire premise is based on FAKE NEWS! From the New York Times.
Well the church is really incensed about these heretical opinions being allowed.
It's sure to drop further once he repeals health care.
Why would you assume that? The correlation is that since Obamacare caused life expectancy has dropped for the first time since 1993. If it's repealed, maybe it will start going back up.
Because the dominant culture is European and it has systematically sought to destroy other cultures through war, colonization, subjugation, forced assimilation, and economic coercion?
Pretty sure Asian culture has done the same.
Well now that is a cogent and reasonable argument, thank you.
However, you didn't cite any source to the claim that the Weather Channel has climate scientists on staff, or what their credentials or peer-reviewed papers may have been or said. The Post article (hit piece, really, but that's expected) quotes the current CEO of TWC, David Kenny, provides some glowing praise of his staff, but it's just an attempt to distance the company from Coleman's statements (might be bad for business). There is nothing there that justifies TWC or their meteorologists (and, yes, "people that look good on TV") as authorities on climate change.
Nope. They are both meteorologists. Both backed by meteorological science. You can argue that Coleman has more experience and credentials in the field than the younger meteorologists working for the weather center. But that's it. You accept both as an authority or neither.
To only accept one as an authority and not the other is nothing but confirmation bias on your part.
Sort of like the confirmation bias that immediately buried my comments regarding this hypocrisy.
So you make a case that a _reporter_ of weather is a climate sceptic and dismiss all the _researchers_ of weather and climate that says otherwise. I cannot see why we should listen to John Coleman based on his credentials.
Then why are you listening to the Weather Channel, which has credentials even less impressive than John Coleman. That's the point. What makes the less experienced meteorologists at the Weather Channel a better authority than the more experienced and awarded meteorologist that founded it?
then our democracy truly is dead. We aren't there yet. I still have hope, but any government that relies on propaganda to gain and hold power is the opposite of a democracy, and that is the road we are traveling toward.
"Traveling toward"? Really? Take a look in the rear view mirror, buddy, that fork in the road is WAY back behind you. You've been on the road for a LONG time!
It's funny because John Coleman, the co-founder of the Weather Channel, and winner of the American Meteorological -- that's a tough one -- Meteorological Society's award for broadcast meteorologist of the year spent more than 60 years reporting on the weather, and he is incensed that the station he started has decided to use it's platform for spreading propaganda about global warming.
He was so upset about the claims of manmade global warming that he wrote a letter to the UCLA's Hammer Museum for their forum that was called Tackling Climate Change. He said "You don't have both sides represented, and I'm here to tell you that manmade global climate change is a myth."
A few choice quotes from John Coleman:
You know, a climate skeptic can rarely get on TV, ever since Al Gore made it a plank of the Democratic Party. This is a tough go for people who don't believe in climate change. A lot study on this.
Well, it's very difficult for anybody to be against it [manmade climate change] because the media has told the nation over and over again, day after day for 20 years that the oceans are rising, the polar bears are dying, the sea -- the ice is melting, the storms are going to sweep the earth and that we're all gonna die of a heat wave. I mean, this is an incredible bad, bad science.
There are 9,000 PhDs and 31 scientists who have signed the petition that says [CO2] is not a significant greenhouse gas. Oh, it's small itsy bitsy but in greenhouse gas but it's not in any ways significant. And we are sure of it. It's not like, something I made up or just thought of. I've studied and studied and studied. And Roger Revelle, the great scientist who wrote that paper back in 1957 with Hans Suess changed his mind a decade later and said, Wait a minute, I think we were wrong. Don't anybody panic. I don't think there's any global warming." And that's when Al Gore said he was senile.
Al Gore had one class in science. Roger Revelle taught it to him. He got a D and yet he's made a billion dollars off to climate change. Shame on you Al Gore.
The sky is falling. ‘Climate Change’ is running wild and disaster is certain unless we immediately stop burning coal and oil and move quickly to ‘green energy’ to eliminate use of fossil fuels. Heat waves, huge floods, powerful storms, droughts and rising seas are on the verge of killing millions of us and destroying our civilization. That is my summary of the new Federal Assessment of Climate Change issued by a Obama administration team of more than 300 specialists guided by a 60-member federal advisory committee produced the report I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk.
So the Weather Channel is upset that Breitbart is using it's video - AFTER PAYING FOR IT - to illustrate his stories. And the founder of the Weather Channel is upset that the media network he created is being used for things HE doesn't agree with.
Par for the course. And the usual suspects praise the Weather Channel for championing the AGW catechism, but they are no more of an authority on the issue than the very founder of that channel, who is excoriated for having an opinion.
Feel free to cite other authorities that were involved in crafting the Constitution to refute that. But you won't be able to.
The original authorities involved in crafting the constitution are no longer around. Instead, we have constitutional scholars and supreme court justices. They know a lot more than some angry internet dude yelling for less government until he loses something. Fact: until SCOTUS says otherwise, DoEd is constitutional.
Well they haven't ruled either way, so we can't say that. We can say that it's assumed to be Constitutional until there is a challenge, but that's about all. The real fact is that it's a huge useless waste of billions of dollars in taxpayer funding, and that public education has only gotten worse since it was established.
I disagree on your "real fact." Without public education the great majority of people in this country would be MUCH worse off. Do you really want countless millions of illiterate people around you?
That has nothing to do with the Federal Department of Education. At all. NOTHING. We had public education before 1979, and we will have it after that useless waste of money is disbanded and nothing but a bad memory, and it will likely thrive without the boots of Common Core and No Child Left Behind and other disasters stamping on the face of responsible educators trying to help the children succeed.
That is, your idiotic straw man is just that: an idiotic straw man.
Feel free to cite other authorities that were involved in crafting the Constitution to refute that. But you won't be able to.
The original authorities involved in crafting the constitution are no longer around. Instead, we have constitutional scholars and supreme court justices. They know a lot more than some angry internet dude yelling for less government until he loses something. Fact: until SCOTUS says otherwise, DoEd is constitutional.
Well they haven't ruled either way, so we can't say that. We can say that it's assumed to be Constitutional until there is a challenge, but that's about all. The real fact is that it's a huge useless waste of billions of dollars in taxpayer funding, and that public education has only gotten worse since it was established.
This, combined with the fact that the ruling banned the pamphlet, i.e. restricted free speech, would seem to belie what you're saying.
You're quoting an opinion that was (rightly) overturned. In 1969, the Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio replaced it with the "imminent lawless action" test, one that protects a broader range of speech. This test states that the government may only limit speech that incites unlawful action sooner than the police can arrive to prevent that action.
"General Welfare" does NOT provide ANY powers to the Federal government above and beyond the enumerated powers. Because the Federal government is limited. If you just point to the "General Welfare" clause and claim it provides powers, you're saying that the Federal government power is unlimited. Full stop.
Feel free to cite other authorities that were involved in crafting the Constitution to refute that. But you won't be able to.
Like that nut who recently shot up the sandwich shop, because fake news made it seem like they were doing human trafficking from those Evil Democrats. Other than blind censoring where the radicalized people just discuss off the grid, and build up their anger from not feeling the ability to speak their believes. I would like to find some way to flag truthfulness of stories. So we can get a good idea on the nature of the story.
Well, you can start by not embellishing stories to make a point. The guy that went into Comet Ping Pong fired one shot into the floor, which is bad enough, but your description made it sound like he did lots of damage with multiple gunshots. Should your post be censored as "fake news"? I would flag it "mostly true", since he did fire a shot inside the place. 7 out of 10 for truthfulness, but still misleading.
Unfortunately I think you'd be hard pressed to find much that fits into the "News - Validated: News with validated facts" category, even using mainstream sources. They send out LOTS of stuff with nothing to back it up but some vague "sources say" statement, indicating some anonymous statement from who-knows-who, far from anything "validated". How long did the story about Libyan soldier using viagra to rape thousands of women before it was outed as bullshit?