You can dish the sarcasm, you can take it.

Yes @Zuluzeit you are essential in my heart.

Ok fine, I'll stick around. Thanks guys 😢

Yeah, I am not so catty. I can get coldly calculating. I attempt to avoid that.

somehow we're not talking about law right now ... but yeah I don't ascribe political motives to the SCOTUS decision ... I think there wasn't a remedy under the constitution and so they weren't going to get into it no matter what

Ive never dished out a unicorn before.

But I hear it is nice dinner.

Wow, yeah. Wth is that? New one on me.

To tough. Not like veil.

There are lots of weird unicode characters nowadays.

maninabusinesssuitlevitating.

https://www.compart.com/en/unicode/U+1F574

Hello, Mr. Anderson.

Hi everyone

Welcome! @ankiwo

Neo much?

Naw, Agent Smith.

That's all I see when I see that unicode character.

And I'm almost certain that was the intent.

Hence the sunglasses, levitating, and business suit.

@ankiwo hola

we had a discussion on it this morning in <#771201221145919499> and here's the short version of my take: there's a link that has this on standing - "Constitutional Standards: Injury in Fact, Causation, and Redressability.—Although the Court has been inconsistent, it has now settled upon the rule that, “at an irreducible minimum,” the constitutional requisites under Article III for the existence of standing are that the plaintiff must personally have: 1) suffered some actual or threatened injury; 2) that injury can fairly be traced to the challenged action of the defendant; and 3) that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision." ... I think its #3) for SCOTUS on the TX case, there's no constitutional remedy that changes the result all based on the electors clause in the constitution https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-3/20-substantial-interest-standing.html

HAH! I just did a search of my name and not one picture came up. Stealth!

Now try a reverse image search.

I suspect my reverse image search would render some results.

I only know of two images of me on the net at all. I am not completely off. Just very very limited.

Charlie Kirk show on Rumble depicts Ji Jinping as Winnie the Pooh.

How to get your platform banned from China: Allow saying things about controversial topics, and talk about "Tankman" or "Winnie the Pooh"

"1986"

LOL

Not actually a joke, sadly.

Question on Trump’s executive order - can’t Biden (if inaugurated) just create an executive order to undo Trump’s EO? Especially to get the heat off China so that Biden family 10% holdings is not compromised

@Maw you mean 1989?

Probably.

86 was chernobyl.

89 was the wall

Wait what? Pooh bear is universally lovable.

I'm talking about Tiananmen Square.

yes. same year as the wall

Talk about that is usually banned in China.

same type of operation, but failed in china.