March 25, 20223 yr 13 hours ago, ToastJenkins said: So when did you suffer the stroke? Probably the same time you joined the Cult.
March 25, 20223 yr 9 hours ago, vikas83 said: Look. His wife is Looney Tunes. But so are many wives. We need concrete evidence that he in some way ruled the way he did to protect his wife (preventing the release of her texts). Otherwise, being nuts and/or having a nuts wife isn’t grounds for impeachment. If it were, 90% of Congress would be impeached. But calling for him to resign based on wife wife being crazier than a bag of cats? You need a hell of a lot more than that. Live look at paco
March 25, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, DEagle7 said: Completely agree that Thomas isn't going anywhere outside of some new breaking info. But I will say "Looney Tunes" doesn't quite cover it if she was really pushing Meadows to try and overthrow a democratic election, and standard Congressional F-ery doesn't quite cover it if he voted against a supreme court decision specifically knowing his wife could be implicated if he voted for it. That's above and beyond the usual BS. Enough to get him impeached or force retirement? Doubt it unfortunately, but still really really Fed. The key word here is "if". Now, we get proof that he voted the way he did simply to protect his wife? I'll be the first calling for impeachment or resignation. But this immediate cry that assumes Clarence Thomas believes the same thing as his wife AND compromised himself to protect her -- yeah, charges like that require evidence. Just the same as you can miss me with all the Hunter Biden BS unless you can show me that Joe Biden took actions in his government capacity to help his son, the same standard applies here. Also, if I am now responsible for every view taken by my wife...
March 25, 20223 yr 20 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: So she is soft on Rape. But the GOP has no problem with that.
March 25, 20223 yr 14 minutes ago, vikas83 said: The key word here is "if". Now, we get proof that he voted the way he did simply to protect his wife? I'll be the first calling for impeachment or resignation. But this immediate cry that assumes Clarence Thomas believes the same thing as his wife AND compromised himself to protect her -- yeah, charges like that require evidence. Just the same as you can miss me with all the Hunter Biden BS unless you can show me that Joe Biden took actions in his government capacity to help his son, the same standard applies here. Also, if I am now responsible for every view taken by my wife... Eh the Hunter analogy doesn't really track with me because as of right now we don't have any evidence of wrong doing with Hunter, whereas Ginni it seems pretty clear cut she was trying to encourage Meadows to overthrow the election. But the rest I fully agree with. Accusations like that require clear evidence and I would be shocked if they'd be dumb enough to leave a trail back to Thomas even if he was involved. It's sketchy as hell that he was the lone dissenting opinion, with very shaky justification, on a decision that could implicate his wife. But also agree that's not enough to implicate him legally.
March 25, 20223 yr I find it amazing that NPC ishlibs have to pretend this is now normal: It really is a cult. No other way to explain it.
March 25, 20223 yr 16 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: Eh the Hunter analogy doesn't really track with me because as of right now we don't have any evidence of wrong doing with Hunter, whereas Ginni it seems pretty clear cut she was trying to encourage Meadows to overthrow the election. But the rest I fully agree with. Accusations like that require clear evidence and I would be shocked if they'd be dumb enough to leave a trail back to Thomas even if he was involved. It's sketchy as hell that he was the lone dissenting opinion, with very shaky justification, on a decision that could implicate his wife. But also agree that's not enough to implicate him legally. don't you remember the evidence showing hunter pushing to overturn a fair & legal election? man, how'd you miss that? totally the same situation as clarence's wife going to the jan 6 rally and conspiring with cheeto's chief of staff while consulting her "best friend". 100%!
March 25, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said: I'd prefer the Court be entirely apolitical, but it is what it is. If I'm simply stepping back and looking at this logically, I think it would be better for the country in the long term for both sides to have relatively equal influence. You're less likely to see things boil over into social strife if each side feels that they have a say in the matters at hand. Even if they got Thomas' seat, it would still be a 5-4 conservative majority, even though they are not a majority of the electorate. It is unnaturally out of balance right now, and I truly don't think this is good for the nation as a whole. Fallacy of the middle
March 25, 20223 yr 13 minutes ago, DEagle7 said: Eh the Hunter analogy doesn't really track with me because as of right now we don't have any evidence of wrong doing with Hunter, whereas Ginni it seems pretty clear cut she was trying to encourage Meadows to overthrow the election. But the rest I fully agree with. Accusations like that require clear evidence and I would be shocked if they'd be dumb enough to leave a trail back to Thomas even if he was involved. It's sketchy as hell that he was the lone dissenting opinion, with very shaky justification, on a decision that could implicate his wife. But also agree that's not enough to implicate him legally. I mean, sharing whack job conspiracy theories and suggesting actions to the Chief of Staff isn't illegal. It's stupid and disgusting. But suggesting someone do something illegal isn't generally in and of itself an illegal act. If I tell you to rob a bank, and then you are dumb enough to do it -- I'm not legally responsible for it.
March 25, 20223 yr https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/25/politics/joe-manchin-ketanji-brown-jackson-vote/index.html Manchin's on board. That seals the deal.
March 25, 20223 yr 4 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/25/politics/joe-manchin-ketanji-brown-jackson-vote/index.html Manchin's on board. That seals the deal. It was always an inevitability. Republicans did a good job forcing democrats to openly defend light sentences for child predators, and, of course, exposing the left's psychotic/retarded views on gender ideology. Win/win for both parties, here.
March 25, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, ToastJenkins said: Fallacy of the middle This pertains to arguments, not power differentials. Power in a republic is supposed to be divided and diffused according to the composition of the body politic.
March 25, 20223 yr 1 hour ago, Kz! said: It was always an inevitability. Republicans did a good job forcing democrats to openly defend light sentences for child predators, and, of course, exposing the left's psychotic/retarded views on gender ideology. Win/win for both parties, here. Such a win! Congratulations, you win nothing. I'll take a new member of the court that'll stay on for a generation.
March 25, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, vikas83 said: The key word here is "if". Now, we get proof that he voted the way he did simply to protect his wife? I'll be the first calling for impeachment or resignation. But this immediate cry that assumes Clarence Thomas believes the same thing as his wife AND compromised himself to protect her -- yeah, charges like that require evidence. Just the same as you can miss me with all the Hunter Biden BS unless you can show me that Joe Biden took actions in his government capacity to help his son, the same standard applies here. Also, if I am now responsible for every view taken by my wife... He should have recused himself. I agree that calls for him to resign or whatever are over the top, but he absolutely deserves to be criticized for not bowing out when there is an undeniable conflict of interest.
March 25, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, jsdarkstar said: So she is soft on Rape. But the GOP has no problem with that. Are we talking about legitimate rape? Because we know that rarely leads to pregnancy so it's like, no biggie or whatever.
March 25, 20223 yr 16 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: Such a win! Congratulations, you win nothing. I'll take a new member of the court that'll stay on for a generation. It definitely is a win. The SC appointment was a breakaway layup that had no chance to fail for the democrats. Repubs at least made them look completely insane and retarded in the process.
March 25, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, ToastJenkins said: Fallacy of the middle How is it a "fallacy of the middle" to desire a body politic (of which SCOTUS is part of, even if it holds a position insulated from the whims of politics) that reflects the views of the citizens? We could argue whether that is a good or necessary thing, but it's not a fallacy of the middle.
March 25, 20223 yr 5 minutes ago, Kz! said: It definitely is a win. The SC appointment was a breakaway layup that had no chance to fail for the democrats. Repubs at least made them look completely insane and retarded in the process. Whatever makes you feel better
March 25, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: How is it a "fallacy of the middle" to desire a body politic (of which SCOTUS is part of, even if it holds a position insulated from the whims of politics) that reflects the views of the citizens? We could argue whether that is a good or necessary thing, but it's not a fallacy of the middle. He never actually understood many of the words he uses.
Create an account or sign in to comment