1
Toys 1 point ago +1 / -0

Agreed. IMO, Rushing is one of the best picks in general (not just among the women). She's everything conservatives have been looking for, really. And being a clerk for Thomas only helps her credentials, IMO.

Too bad we won't see her for at least another 8 years. Republicans too stupid to realize the power a 38 year old justice gives them.

2
Toys 2 points ago +2 / -0

Rushing was the only good choice. She's Scalia with a vagina. Too bad the cuckold Republicans would never vote for a 38 year justice, claiming she's too young.

2
Toys 2 points ago +2 / -0

They might, but if I were a betting man I'd bet against anyone having the ability to brute force their way into an AES-256 key in any sort of meaningful time.

23
Toys 23 points ago +24 / -1

While this is true, there are some encryption methods that we just don't have the time and/or computing power to decrypt yet. No matter what you think the NSA/FBI/CIA/Etc has, some of it is still just outside our current abilities. There's also the fact that in order to reverse the algorithm, you need to know the algorithm. And in order to know the algorithm, you need to know all the arguments (in encryption, the key(s)).

You can get those through hacking, social engineering, etc. You can also get them through brute force. The problem there is, brute forcing some of these algorithms is impossible. Take AES-256 for example, I'll skip the math, but it would take the fastest supercomputer in the world 27,337,893 trillion trillion trillion trillion years to brute force its way through all possible keys. Seeing as the universe is only roughly 15 billion years old, there's not enough time in existence for this to be a possibility.

And there's other mechanisms of "encryption", which aren't really encryption but hashing. Something like MD5, which hashes the same data into the same result every single time. It's impossible to reverse this and, thus, impossible to "crack". It's terrible for encryption because, as stated, it cannot be reversed and so the MD5 hash is useless to someone trying to read the message you sent them.

Example:

15 % 4 = 3

x % 4 = 3

Even though you know the algorithm, it would be impossible to solve for X as there are multiple values that work: 3, 7, 11, 15, etc.

1
Toys 1 point ago +1 / -0

While I agree with your sentiment, Barnes is not a no name. Dude is a super sharp legal mind. So is Viva, just less so about American law and such.

I don't think Barrett is that bad of a pick. She's no Rushing, but she's not terrible. Her problem is there's no state power she doesn't love.

That becomes painfully clear the more you read through her case history.

0
Toys 0 points ago +1 / -1

A great rundown. I don't get all the hate she gets here. She's actually a pretty strong candidate.

My biggest complaint against her is she has not seen a state power she doesn't want to expand, and she has not seen a government she does not want to side with. And that worries me. A lot.

1
Toys 1 point ago +1 / -0

Rushing would scare me. Super super smart brain. Would be an incredible justice. Age and experience could be a huge stumbling block for some, though, and I don't like taking that risk in these times.

It's gonna be Lagoa or Barrett if I had to guess.

-3
Toys -3 points ago +3 / -6

And here I've been defending Trump supporters by saying at least they're still able to be friends with, and respect, people who disagree with them. That they're not the tribal kind.. It's one of the biggest things that drew me away from the LP.

This thread, and attitudes like this, have really put a crack in that.

3
Toys 3 points ago +7 / -4

Do you just throw words around? It kind of feels like you do.

I said that if Scalia could respect her than that's enough for me to respect her. You've since gone on this little grandstand about destroying America. I've not tried to justify anything so there's no gymnastics happening. I don't care what you think. I had great respect for Scalia, and if he found her worthy than that's enough for me.

You sound exactly like all those liberals when Scalia died. You're treating RBG the same exact way. You disagreed with her so, naturally, she's undeserving of respect (even in death) and a danger to America. Again, literally the liberals after Scalia died.

Congratulations.

2
Toys 2 points ago +9 / -7

I'm glad to know you think Scalia was a danger to America and that "his kind" was not needed around here.

10
Toys 10 points ago +21 / -11

I think you confuse respect and a lack of hate with "being a fan". I disagreed with nearly every single way she voted. That doesn't mean she cannot, or should, be respected as a judge and a sharp legal mind (in her day, anyways. Not so much in her last few years).

5
Toys 5 points ago +5 / -0

Mitch holds all the cards as the Senate majority leader. The Democrats could try and filibuster, but I don't think they'd risk that political damage. Anyone who believes RBG was a vital member of our SOCTUS because of her political leanings was not voting for Trump anyways, and filibustering a nominee just makes me look petty to all the normies who don't really understand the importance of the SCOTUS.

3
Toys 3 points ago +3 / -0

They'll still happen, and then Trump will (rightfully) challenge their validity in court. That fight will no doubt go all the way up to the SCOTUS. If we don't have another conservative judge on the court by then we run the high risk of Roberts defecting and voting in line with Democrats, leaving us with a 4-4 split. This is a very sticky situation to be in and likely leaves us with whatever the lower court decided.

If we can get Mitch and the Republicans in the Senate to actually do their fucking jobs (high bar, I know), we could get RBG replaced before we get to that point. That would leave the court with a 5-3-1 (Conservative - Liberal - Roberts) split, thus giving us a very clear majority in a case about mail-in voting (or any other election integrity issue). The chance of Roberts AND one of Alito, Kavanaugh, Thomas, Gorsuch, or New Appointee both defecting and voting with the Democrats is slim to none -- especially considering 3 out of 6 of those judges would have been appointed by Trump himself.

Hopefully that makes sense?

5
Toys 5 points ago +5 / -0

A more conservative SCOTUS is likely to rule against all the mail in voting in all the challenges they'll see between now and January.

1
Toys 1 point ago +1 / -0

wtf did I just watch?

58
Toys 58 points ago +70 / -12

She deserved better. But, alas, Democrats do what Democrats do. They held her in her seat out of fear of losing their own power. Typical

I know many here hated her but I didn't. I keep coming back to a single point that makes it impossible for me to dislike her -- Scalia considered her a very close personal friend. That's really all I need to know, if I'm honest.

1
Toys 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hey, that's the archive.is link it tried creating for me. I sat there for 10 minutes and it just keep spinning so I gave up, lol. Glad it finally worked.

4
Toys 4 points ago +4 / -0

I refuse to believe this is an actual quote. I refuse to believe that this is what the party that supposedly represents roughly half the country has chosen to represent them. I refuse.

3
Toys 3 points ago +3 / -0

I'm confused, wasn't "Big Pharma" the enemy for 8 years? Now, suddenly, it's vitally important who they support?

Honk fucking honk.

view more: Next ›