WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2024 Poal.co

756

(post is archived)

[–] 16 pts

Oh no, it is very explicable. The correct term I believe he is looking for is inexcusable.

[–] 7 pts

I think you misunderstand the nig nog's reasoning. He's actually smarter than most Caucasians believe it or not. He's not saying it's inexplicable because it's the right thing to do. He's saying it's inexplicable because not hearing these cases erodes the goyim's faith in the system. When 70% of the country knows that elections are rigged and courts are not objectively deciding cases based on law, SCOTUS and congress are in danger of their heads being on pikes. By hearing these cases and giving a toothless "you need to do better next time" ruling they protect their positions and lives and they can keep accepting bribes and looting the country while the sheeple sleep.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of inexplicable - that something (this ruling) can't be explained. Its motivation can be explained. Its effect can be explained. He just doesn't want to go there.

[–] 3 pts

da antics of semantics