Justice Breyer to retire


LDSGator
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 1/26/2022 at 5:02 PM, LDSGator said:

Interesting.

After being humbled in 2016, when I thought Hillary would crush Trump, I no longer am in the political prediction field! Lol. 

Hillary ran a terrible campaign. 

Nothing more, nothing less.

She appeared as physically frail, mentally out of touch, incredibly arrogant, and elitist. 

Trump, in contrast, appeared to be keen, energetic, and willing to listen to the public. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ironhold said:

Hillary ran a terrible campaign. 

Nothing more, nothing less.

She appeared as physically frail, mentally out of touch, incredibly arrogant, and elitist. 

Trump, in contrast, appeared to be keen, energetic, and willing to listen to the public. 

Yup. No argument there at all. She IS an arrogant, out of touch elitist. 
 

However, and how quickly we forget, the overwhelming majority of people, including many republicans, all thought Hillary would win. It’s easy to say now “Oh, I knew Trump would win” and obviously some people (like @NeuroTypical) were exactly right. But, many of us were stunned that Trump won. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Yup. No argument there at all. She IS an arrogant, out of touch elitist. 
 

However, and how quickly we forget, the overwhelming majority of people, including many republicans, all thought Hillary would win. It’s easy to say now “Oh, I knew Trump would win” and obviously some people (like @NeuroTypical) were exactly right. But, many of us were stunned that Trump won. 

The minute she went on her "basket of deplorables" rant, I stuck a fork in her campaign. 

It was the same mistake Romney made with his remarks about people on financial assistance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ironhold said:

The minute she went on her "basket of deplorables" rant, I stuck a fork in her campaign. 

It was the same mistake Romney made with his remarks about people on financial assistance. 

I was routing for Bernie, even if he'd never win.  She was absolutely terrible at what she and the democrat party did in order for her to get the nomination.  I think that turned a LOT more against her simply because of how they did it.

If I recall...

For Republicans that year, I didn't like Trump at all.  I believe I actually was more in support of Ben Carson and later Marco  Rubio.

For me, the worst candidates got the nominations that year.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 1/28/2022 at 10:39 AM, NeuroTypical said:
On 1/28/2022 at 9:49 AM, Traveler said:

If he is replaced before this term is completed - something dark is behind it.

From where I'm standing, "something dark" is behind the majority of geopolitical and federal politics.  Regular old standard run-of-the-mill politics, that I see every day, is dark.

I don't see the point in assigning an emotional tone to such things.  I don't need Xfiles background music whenever I think about who will replace Breyer.  It's plain old every day politics, run by power brokers and behind-the-scenes manipulators.  The visible part is run visibly by politicians who follow the two great political commandments - thou shalt get power, and thou shalt remain in power.  Of course there are conspiracies and conspirators involved - why would anyone assume otherwise?

Ketanji Brown Jackson, Leondra R. Kruger, Julianna Michelle Childs, Rae Jackson-Akiwumi, or Eunice Cheryl Lee.  Whether you're light or dark, there's your short list.  I wonder which one they'll pick!

Whelp, it looks like Ketanji Brown Jackson is the pick!

Who Is Ketanji Brown Jackson? Supreme Court Pick's Bio ...

Harvard, clerked for Breyer, vice chair of the sentencing commission where she reduced drug offenses.  

Looking forward to hearing @Traveler's theories about nefarious forces orchestrating the event somehow.  Wiki doesn't say anything about reptilian shapeshifters, I need someone to fill me in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Whelp, it looks like Ketanji Brown Jackson is the pick!

Who Is Ketanji Brown Jackson? Supreme Court Pick's Bio ...

Harvard, clerked for Breyer, vice chair of the sentencing commission where she reduced drug offenses.  

Looking forward to hearing @Traveler's theories about nefarious forces orchestrating the event somehow.  Wiki doesn't say anything about reptilian shapeshifters, I need someone to fill me in.

This pick could have been much worse. It might be time for the right to swallow hard and vote yes, only because the alternative could be a disaster.

 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Is anyone else paying any attention to the KBJ confirmation hearing?  Interesting stuff - especially if you avail yourselves of slices of it from different agendas and biases.  

But one bias I'm missing, is @Traveler's continued take on things.   

On 1/28/2022 at 9:49 AM, Traveler said:

The Supreme Court begins its cases starting the first Monday of October (by our Constitution) and usually ends by late June or early July.  If Justice Breyer is willing to step down having been involved in hearing before conclusion worries me big time.  What ever darkness is involved - I have great difficulty in rationing that it is not a matter of any concern - especially in the integrity of our nation's justice.  If it turns out that Justice Breyer completes this year's SS term - I will admit my over reaction.  If he is replaced before this term is completed - something dark is behind it.

Do you still think dark conspiracies are behind the nomination and timing?  Are you still worried big time about things?  I'm interested, because you're my only source opining about this event in such terms.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Do you still think dark conspiracies are behind the nomination and timing

One of the many, many, many issues is with the more whacky conspiracy theories is that you can’t disprove them. If you say “You know, we’re not all lizard people.” The true believer will just say “Well, you are evil or part of the conspiracy so you’d say that.”

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LDSGator said:

One of the many, many, many issues is with the more whacky conspiracy theories is that you can’t disprove them. If you say “You know, we’re not all lizard people.” The true believer will just say “Well, you are evil or part of the conspiracy so you’d say that.”

Avatar checks out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Is anyone else paying any attention to the KBJ confirmation hearing?  Interesting stuff - especially if you avail yourselves of slices of it from different agendas and biases.  

But one bias I'm missing, is @Traveler's continued take on things.   

Do you still think dark conspiracies are behind the nomination and timing?  Are you still worried big time about things?  I'm interested, because you're my only source opining about this event in such terms.

 

I would say something about conspiracies.  After college I went to work for the Defense Department.  I worked on many classified projects for which I had to have a security clearance.  Some projects I worked on included the project itself in the classification.  This required that I not include such projects on my resume.   I was given projects to list on my resume that not only did I not work on - they did not even exist.  @LDSGator made references to "whacky conspiracies".  I would think that the Department of Defense requirement that I put projects on my resume that do not exist ought to qualify as a whacky conspiracy.  But this gets even better.  One project I worked on was the B1 bomber.  I worked on particular technology for the B1 and was present from the testing against the most advanced systems at the time.  These test were run out of the Roswell Air center in New Mexico.  I think some of the most "whacky conspiracy theories" have connection to Roswell.   Odd as it may seem - the so called whacky conspiracy theories have deep roots in actual conspiracies that are created by "the Government" that is delighted that whacky conspiracy theories gain traction to provide cover for conspiracies for the secrets they want to keep classified (hidden).

The element of conspiracies that give the whacky conspiracy theories traction is that obviously something is happening but the "story" being presented does not fit well with what little is being leaked.  

Allow me to present some things we know about governments.  Secret combinations exist in every government and thus dark conspiracies are by nature embedded in politics.  Secret combinations are active in illegal drugs and human trafficking.  I am quite sure that the drug cartels have control of much of the Mexican government.  They gain control of government workers that same way today as outlined in the Book of Mormon.  It is my opinion that we can identify politicians and government officials in league (conspiracy) with secret combinations the same way they were identified in the Book of Mormon.  One of the first indications that obviously points to secret combination conspiracy is control of the justice system with lawyers and judges that do not enforce the laws against fellow conspirators.  Some examples could be not enforcing border law, defunding police, abolishing ICE, not punishing those involved in gun violence (but gas lighting society by blaming violence and crime on law enforcement rather than the perpetrators.   Another method is to lie and create misdirection - and example when asked a question with an obvious answer - they say they do not know the answer by giving an excuse.  Perhaps an example of the lie and misdirection would be if they are asked to define what is a woman - they say they do not know because they are not a biologists. 

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ancient Prophet Moroni saw our day and he gave this solemn warning: "Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you... Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when you shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you. . . For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies."   Ether 8:23-25

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Traveler said:

made references to "whacky conspiracies".

Yes he did.
 

To oversimplify, I’ve always had disgust/amusement for most conspiracy theories because they violate the basic rules of critical thinking. When asked for evidence, those who support the real insane ones take “evidence” grossly out of context. When you tell them they are incorrect, they’ll mostly just accuse you of being part of the grand conspiracy or tell you that the lack of evidence just proves their conspiracy even more. There are a lot of other reasons why I dislike like them too. It’s so depressing to see anti vaxxers, flat earthers, and 9/11 truthers flourish. So, so depressing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

Yes he did.
 

To oversimplify, I’ve always had disgust/amusement for most conspiracy theories because they violate the basic rules of critical thinking. When asked for evidence, those who support the real insane ones take “evidence” grossly out of context. When you tell them they are incorrect, they’ll mostly just accuse you of being part of the grand conspiracy or tell you that the lack of evidence just proves their conspiracy even more. There are a lot of other reasons why I dislike like them too. It’s so depressing to see anti vaxxers, flat earthers, and 9/11 truthers flourish. So, so depressing. 

 

Which does not eliminate the reality of conspiracies.  Secret combinations live through conspiracy.  They still exist and always will until Satan is overthrown.

 

". . . the Book of Mormon brings men to Christ through two basic means. . . [the second of which is] the Book of Mormon exposes the enemies of Christ. . . God, with his infinite foreknowledge, so molded the Book of Mormon that we might see the error and know how to combat false. . . political. . . concepts of our time. . . Now, we have not been using the Book of Mormon as we should. . . our families may be corrupted by worldly trends and teachings unless we know how to use the book to expose and combat the falsehoods in socialism, organic evolution, rationalism, humanism, etc. . . Our Nation will continue to degenerate unless we read and heed the words of the God of this land, Jesus Christ, and quit building up and upholding the secret combinations which the Book of Mormon tells us proved the downfall of both previous American civilizations." ~Ezra Taft Benson, CR, April 5, 1975.

 

When Ezra Taft Benson became the Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints he repeated this talk at least 37 different times, at every Regional Conference he attended, The Regional Representatives Seminar, reprinted as the 1st Presidency message in the Ensign, at talks he gave at different Wards he attended, etc.)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Yes he did.
 

To oversimplify, I’ve always had disgust/amusement for most conspiracy theories because they violate the basic rules of critical thinking. When asked for evidence, those who support the real insane ones take “evidence” grossly out of context. When you tell them they are incorrect, they’ll mostly just accuse you of being part of the grand conspiracy or tell you that the lack of evidence just proves their conspiracy even more. There are a lot of other reasons why I dislike like them too. It’s so depressing to see anti vaxxers, flat earthers, and 9/11 truthers flourish. So, so depressing. 

I have become somewhat of an anti-vaxxer myself because of the overwhelming evidence that the vaccine has become much more political than medical science.  It has been reported that the vaccine, all by itself has made over 12 new billionaires in the USA.  Money tends to corrupt as a counterfeit to power and glory and thus is arguably one of the engines Lucifer used to establish the war in heaven.  Jesus was very critical of those that accumulate vast wealth.  We also learn from the Book of Mormon that money is the primary building block Satan uses to build up secret combinations.  We have known from the very beginning of the pandemic that the critically endangered part of our population is less than 10% -- that in reality requires the vaccine.  So in essence the vaccine mandates (government) have created the false misdirection that is the fuel for the anti- vaxxers.

The excuse to oppose the anti-vaxxers is that those not vaccinated can spread the pandemic.  As it turns out that was a false diversion because those that have been vaccinated are just as likely to spread the pandemic as those not vaccinated - with one exception.  Those that developed antibodies and recovered with T-cell immunity have not been found to be reinfected or spread the pandemic in any amount to account for any statistical accounting; thus comprising what even Dr Fauci has expressed as such low amounts (concerning other stats) and should be considered antidotal.   

In short those, with natural immunity are better off not getting the vaccine but are a social pariah if they decline getting the vaccine for any reason  and are labeled as being anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists -- which I believe is more of a whacky conspiracy than being anti-vaccine and denying the wealthy additional billions. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I have become somewhat of an anti-vaxxer myself because of the overwhelming evidence that the vaccine has become much more political than medical science.  It has been reported that the vaccine, all by itself has made over 12 new billionaires in the USA.  Money tends to corrupt as a counterfeit to power and glory and thus is arguably one of the engines Lucifer used to establish the war in heaven.  Jesus was very critical of those that accumulate vast wealth.  We also learn from the Book of Mormon that money is the primary building block Satan uses to build up secret combinations. 

If you applied this reasoning consistently, you'd be a socialist. Does it bother you that companies like Shell and ExxonMobil are buying back stock at record rates while enjoying their highest profits in over a decade while gas prices hit recird highs? Does it bother you that companies like Wal Mart and Amazon have thousands of employees living on food stamps while they are raking in record profits? The past two years saw a tremendous upward shift in wealth as companies across several industries profited from a global pandemic while putting millions of Americans out of work. But pharmaceutical companies making money from the product that is helping to end that pandemic is where you're taking your stand? 

To be clear, I'm not a fan of big pharma either. But what you're describing is consistent with the workings of the capitalist system that people of conservative persuasion like to defend from the "evils" of "socialism'.

48 minutes ago, Traveler said:

We have known from the very beginning of the pandemic that the critically endangered part of our population is less than 10% -- that in reality requires the vaccine.  So in essence the vaccine mandates (government) have created the false misdirection that is the fuel for the anti- vaxxers.

10% of the US population is over 30 million people, and getting non-vulnerable Americans vaccinated protects that 10% justvas much as vaccinating the 10%. Is the protection perfect? No. But it's better than no protection, and at this point we have statistics to prove that.

48 minutes ago, Traveler said:

The excuse to oppose the anti-vaxxers is that those not vaccinated can spread the pandemic.  As it turns out that was a false diversion because those that have been vaccinated are just as likely to spread the pandemic as those not vaccinated - with one exception.  Those that developed antibodies and recovered with T-cell immunity have not been found to be reinfected or spread the pandemic in any amount to account for any statistical accounting; thus comprising what even Dr Fauci has expressed as such low amounts (concerning other stats) and should be considered antidotal.   

In short those, with natural immunity are better off not getting the vaccine but are a social pariah if they decline getting the vaccine for any reason  and are labeled as being anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists -- which I believe is more of a whacky conspiracy than being anti-vaccine and denying the wealthy additional billions. 

 

The Traveler

I personally know several people who contracted COVID more than once. One lady, an extended relative of my wife, lost her fiance to it when they both got infected for a second time (neither of them were vaccinated). I don't doubt that natural antibodies help in reducing the effects of the disease, but the vaccine helps too. Again, it's not a perfect protection, but there's data to show that it's effective at keeping people out of the ICU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2022 at 8:49 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Only two things left to happen in this prophecy.  The 'not speaking his name' thing, and the invasion by aliens.  Everything else has happened (at least by rough analogy).

I am having difficulty believing Biden will make it to the end of the 4 year term.  But miracles do happen.

As far as the nomination to replace Bryer...  I had read an article which is now impossible to find (interesting Google filters there).  I'm hoping someone else may have better access. 

The article said that Senate leaders brokered a deal that no Justice would be voted on by the body of the Senate until the Judiciary Committee gave bi-partisan support for the nominee.  That means that as long as all the Republicans on the committee vote no, the nominee will NOT be put up for a vote before the body of the Senate.

Does anyone else remember that?  Anyone else see that? 

Maybe I'm remembering it wrong.  But if it is true, that means that they're stuck with this condition until the next mid-term (when they get a chance to revise the rules).  That's how I understood it anyway.  All thanks to Mitch McConnell.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of the Supreme Court....

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/24/wife-of-supreme-court-justice-thomas-texted-trump-chief-about-overturning-2020-election-report.html

As I understand it (and I could be wrong), these messages are part of the records that were requested by the 1/6 commission and that Trump attempted to block. The matter reached the Supreme Court and they ruled 8-1 to uphold the decision of the lower courts to allow the records to be turned over. The only dissenting justice was...  wait for it.... Clarence Thomas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Godless said:

Speaking of the Supreme Court....

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/24/wife-of-supreme-court-justice-thomas-texted-trump-chief-about-overturning-2020-election-report.html

As I understand it (and I could be wrong), these messages are part of the records that were requested by the 1/6 commission and that Trump attempted to block. The matter reached the Supreme Court and they ruled 8-1 to uphold the decision of the lower courts to allow the records to be turned over. The only dissenting justice was...  wait for it.... Clarence Thomas.

SCOTUS typically takes a number of informal (for lack of a better word) straw polls/preliminary votes before doing the final vote whose results are announced as part of releasing the opinion.  If Thomas were deliberately trying to cover his own posterior, the better strategy would have been to shift his vote once he sensed which way the rest of the court was leaning.  That way he could at least convincingly publicly plead that golly-gee-willikers, he had *no idea* the records would include correspondence with his wife; and he’s as shocked to learn of this as anyone else.

The sheer incompetence of his supposed cover-up leads me to wonder whether in fact there was no intended cover-up at all.  But as Thomas didn’t release a written dissent, it’s particularly hard to understand what was going on in his head.

 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

SCOTUS typically takes a number of informal (for lack of a better word) straw polls/preliminary votes before doing the final vote whose results are announced as part of releasing the opinion.  If Thomas were deliberately trying to clear his own name, the better strategy would have been to shift his vote once he sensed which way the rest of the court was leaning.  That way he could at least convincingly publicly plead that golly-gee-willikers, he had *no idea* the records would include correspondence with his wife; and he’s as shocked to learn of this as anyone else.

The sheer incompetence of his supposed cover-up leads me to wonder whether in fact there was no intended cover-up at all.  But as Thomas didn’t release a written dissent, it’s particularly hard to understand what was going on in his head.

I see your point, but it's not unheard of for people to cast controversial votes on principle knowing both that they'll take heat for it and that their vote ultimately won't matter (see Romney's impeachment vote). Knowing what we know now, had Justice Thomas voted in line with the rest, it would have been seen as a betrayal of his wife. And given Mrs. Thomas' apparent complicated relationship with rationality, she probably would have felt the same way. This tells me that there's a higher-than-zero chance that one of our Supreme Court justices is being influenced by a Qanon-parroting conservative extremist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Godless said:

If you applied this reasoning consistently, you'd be a socialist. Does it bother you that companies like Shell and ExxonMobil are buying back stock at record rates while enjoying their highest profits in over a decade while gas prices hit recird highs? Does it bother you that companies like Wal Mart and Amazon have thousands of employees living on food stamps while they are raking in record profits?

I havent followed this discussion all that closely—certainly @Traveler can speak for himself; and I daresay I’m a little more vaccine-friendly than most other members of this forum.  But it seems to me that there is no comparison between the Walton family growing rich because they sell widgets that everyone wants and that Wal-Mart suddenly made affordable, versus Phizer growing rich because its friends in government used the force of law first to subsidize development of Phizer’s product in the first place, second to create demand for Phizer’s product by compelling the citizenry to obtain it even if they didn’t want it for themselves, and third to use yet *more* taxpayer money in order to purchase vast quantities of Phizer’s product at more-or-less whatever price Phizer set.  That kind of cronyism is a hallmark, not of truly free markets, but of economically interventionist governments; of which socialism is a subset.

And it’s probably worth noting that socialism doesn’t eradicate all wealth; it eradicates (most) private wealth.  Government officials still control enormous purses—only now in conjunction with political power.  In many (most?) socialistic societies, high government officials still have tended to demonstrate a knack for accumulating large stores of private wealth themselves.  And speaking anecdotally (which of course is always a risky proposition), my experience with American socialists is that when you dig a little, it turns out that they tend to be less upset over the fact that the wealth exists than that it’s controlled by the wrong people.  Staggeringly wealthy actors and singers and CEOs and ex-Presidents and congresscritters are generally permitted to enjoy their millions in peace so long as they make proper obeisance now and then and rehash platitudes on the virtues of “sacrifice” whose purpose is primarily to remind lower- and middle-class conservatives (and increasingly, even centrists and non-crazy progressives) to Know Their Place.  

In practice, the difference between capitalism and socialism is that in the former, the rich grow powerful; whereas in the latter, the powerful grow rich.  But capitalism reserves the possibility that someone else may eventually grow rich, thus upsetting a corrupt power balance; whereas socialism tends to ossify the existing power structure indefinitely.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Godless said:

If you applied this reasoning consistently, you'd be a socialist. Does it bother you that companies like Shell and ExxonMobil are buying back stock at record rates while enjoying their highest profits in over a decade while gas prices hit recird highs? Does it bother you that companies like Wal Mart and Amazon have thousands of employees living on food stamps while they are raking in record profits? The past two years saw a tremendous upward shift in wealth as companies across several industries profited from a global pandemic while putting millions of Americans out of work. But pharmaceutical companies making money from the product that is helping to end that pandemic is where you're taking your stand? 

To be clear, I'm not a fan of big pharma either. But what you're describing is consistent with the workings of the capitalist system that people of conservative persuasion like to defend from the "evils" of "socialism'.

Your example of capitalism leaves a lot to be desired.  The corporate model you reference is hardly the free exchange of goods and services void of government social engineering regulation.   For example the record high profits you reference in the gas and oil business is quite exclusively at the refinery level - that is one of the most government regulated operations in this country (hardly capitalism).   The only models of worse economic outcomes are in socialists and other non capitalistic systems (like Venezuela).  I do not understand at all your comparisons -- especially in regards to socialistic systems.    I like it that you provided what you think is a capitalistic model as examples in Shell and ExxonMobil (and other corporate entities) because it shows you level of understanding.  It would help me better understand where you are coming from if you provided similar examples of socialism that demonstrates your better economic system.

Quote

10% of the US population is over 30 million people, and getting non-vulnerable Americans vaccinated protects that 10% justvas much as vaccinating the 10%. Is the protection perfect? No. But it's better than no protection, and at this point we have statistics to prove that.

I personally know several people who contracted COVID more than once. One lady, an extended relative of my wife, lost her fiance to it when they both got infected for a second time (neither of them were vaccinated). I don't doubt that natural antibodies help in reducing the effects of the disease, but the vaccine helps too. Again, it's not a perfect protection, but there's data to show that it's effective at keeping people out of the ICU.

What you have personally encountered concerning COVID-19 is what Dr. Fauci (the CDC and NIH) call antidotal.  The "official" data does indicate that those with natural immunity (not necessarily defined as anyone who has recovered but rather those with antibodies and T-Cell immunity) have profoundly better statistical advantages over the rest of the population - including those vaccinated (which is exclusively a temporary artificial induction of antibodies without T-Cell immunity). 

In addition the CDC and NIH have not publicly supported treatments for early stages of COVID-19 -- at least that I have found or am aware of.  The only such references for early treatments are ironically  from the FDA which has only given "emergency" authorization for the vaccines.  And if anyone if following this - the emergency authorization for the vaccines came from and during the Trump administration.  If you have information of anything added under the current administration - I would be most interested in validating it.

I do know that billions of dollars are involved in distributing the vaccine and so I wonder about the effectiveness of the vaccine in demographics like children under the age of 12 and keeping them out of the ICU?  Do you have data showing how effective the vaccine is for those under 12 compared with the common flue?  

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Godless said:

I see your point, but it's not unheard of for people to cast controversial votes on principle knowing both that they'll take heat for it and that their vote ultimately won't matter (see Romney's impeachment vote). Knowing what we know now, had Justice Thomas voted in line with the rest, it would have been seen as a betrayal of his wife. And given Mrs. Thomas' apparent complicated relationship with rationality, she probably would have felt the same way. This tells me that there's a higher-than-zero chance that one of our Supreme Court justices is being influenced by a Qanon-parroting conservative extremist. 

Perhaps.  People do nutty things for “love”.

As for your last comment about QAnon:  frankly, you’re not going to scare most conservatives with that; given that a majority of SCOTUS justices have been pro-baby-murder for the past fifty years and given that it looks like we are about to confirm our first black woman SCOTUS justice who is utterly incapable of articulating what it is that makes her a woman and therefore, really has no solid logical basis on which to assert that she is even black.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share