Fair enough.

If my argument does not matter just because I do not have any certified scientific data to back it up then I guess that's that. Let's just ignore those things and give him the benefit of the doubt that public speaking is not his forte despite being in the business of politics for decades and being the VP of the previous admin.

Also, why are you bring up Trump into this discussion? If you would like my amateur take on that video you posted, I do not have any licenses to prove my qualification to make any personal conclusions. But here it goes. I think that he is a pathological liar just like most politicians. Did this satisfy you?

Just wondering. Does destroying a business not impact other people's lives and livelihoods? I remembering seeing in the news about an 80 year old in Santa Monica that lost everything, inducing his livelihood. But I guess they're just the minority right? My pain is greater than yours! So fuck you and suck it!

If you say peaceful protests can't do things, clearly you need to look harder. It can happen and it can change things. People just need to be vigilant about it if they really want to. However what happens next is an entirely different matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_Power_Revolution

I'm not saying that all can be answered through peaceful protests but the current situation is clearly far from warranting any form of violence. Especially now that we are in tough times with the whole pandemic. Causing more pain and suffering is not going to make things better. I'm pretty sure those that took 4k televisions made a great stance for victims of racism including George Floyd!

Just to pick up on the bolded part. The vast majority of politicians all over the world are actually not pathological liars. In fact I would probably have trouble to find many even in the GOP, which is especially notorious for lying.

Unless you don't know what "pathological" means, which I have to assume. Otherwise you would use false equivalency and that's just not cool.

So the Supreme court ruled 5-4 that the way that the Trump administration tried to end DACA was not lawful. Personally I support the Daca program but the ruling is pretty bad.

Why? The Trump administration had a legal duty that they did not uphold. Seems pretty cut and dry.

I didnt like they're reasoning. They didn't like the reasoning qnd ruled that the way it happened wasnt justified. I think thats a bad precedent to set for future Presidents trying to end executive orders.  And im pro Daca, but I think they should have handled the majority opinion differently. 

It wasn't that they "didn't like the reasoning". The reasoning was legally invalid and they failed to uphold their duty of ensuring that the consequences of the changes are adequately examined. I don't see how ensuring that the law is followed sets a bad precedent when that is largely the role of the Supreme Court...

It is though. The majority opinion believed thay the reasons given to end the program were not justified. Trump knew the consequences of ending DACA and still tried to do it anyway.  In the future the courts could not prevent Presidents from undoing what former Presidents have done and say that they dint believe the reasoning was justified. 

They weren't justified though. The administration based its argument on the foundation of "The reason we are repealing this is because it was illegal" and their proof was, I believe, a fifth circuit decision which criticized the legality of several bits of DACA, however that decision did not rule DACA illegal and it did not rule the protection from deportation illegal.

As the administrations argument heavily rested on this decision, the fact that the proof of their argument simply didn't work to justify their argument is of critical importance.

Again, this ruling is incredibly narrow in that it does virtually nothing to set precedent beyond the precedent that is already set. It makes it fairly clear that the administration has the ability to undo DACA should they do it correctly instead of hiding behind bullshit arguments.

MSNBC Took Direct Orders From The Clintons & Corporate Democrats