Let’s not be ridiculous here, he’s had plenty of times where he’s struggled to articulate. I agree it’s insane to not vote for him, but these type of statements just give ammo to trump supporters to point to Biden supporters and say how clueless they are.
We all agree that people who organize religions can do so goe nefarious reasons. But the argument was that you can’t trust religious people because they are irrational…but then if they call themselves spiritual, well that doesn’t really count.
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/12/what-causes-sea-level-rise/
Might change when all of the ice melts, but to this point it contributes twice as much per year, per NASA. If you have some other source I would be interested in reading it.
You’re going to nit pick spiritual vs religious? If we’re being pedantic, you’re citing us population, the world is much different. Also even if we accept it’s only about half, my point still stands.
When in reality the sea levels will rise because warm water expands.
Just FYI, sea levels are going to rise primarily because much of the melting ice is not floating in the water, but land based. Thermal expansion is definitely part of it, but secondary.
I’m sure there have been plenty of times you have comfortably trusted a religious person with responsibility because most people are religious.
The media talked about it plenty. This story is 4 years old. How often do the expect the media to report on unfounded allegations by someone who dropped the case?
Apology accepted. I also apologize for snarking back. Lol
Sorry, you’ve proven otherwise.
If you feel that way, then I’m sorry for giving the wrong impression. But I assure you it’s not the case.
Otherwise, my reaction from now on will just be to repeatedly tell you to go away and stop harassing me.
The better way to get me to stop responding to you is to simply not respond to me; I’m not going to respond to the same post over and over again until you respond. If we are having a back-and-forth, I would hardly call that “harassment.”
I have lots of reasons that I am critical about how you use your intelligence, but I assure you I hold no ill will towards you.
Where did you get your psychology degree from?
Nowhere, which is why I linked to a Harvard website.
I’m not attacking you, I’m offering you up a respite for your mental health. We all need it sometimes.
If you are constantly pessimistic, spending so much time on places like Lemmy is probably at least part of the problem.
Unwittingly you’re proving their methods worked, because you’re still talking about them.
My whole point centered around the fact that you shouldn’t pay attention to me, but that you should pay attention to the dissent WITHIN THE SUPREME COURT itself.
Yeah, well, it sounded a whole lot more like you were attacking me and my opinion. You could have absolutely made this point without cursing and without the whole “basement dweller” part. I think we all understand that Sotomayor is a SCOTUS justice.
Probably should have started with that.
I did. At least pretty clearly when I said they were crowning themselves king rather than the POTUS king. Apparently, tho, I have to say I disagree with the ruling in every post or posters will assume that any disagreement with someone who claims the ruling is wrong must mean I think the ruling is correct. I guess I should have known this already tho.
BTW, I never called you this.
“Did you read the fucking dissent? That’s a sitting SC Justice saying that quote, not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller:”
Funny to read you say my post, which doesn’t even remotely imply that I think the ruling was correct, implies that. . .but when you respond to my point, saying it is wrong, and throwing in “not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller,” that doesn’t imply you think that about me.
I responded more directly since your ire seems to be pointed at me.
You’re projecting here, as you were the one cursing at me and insulting people. I said nothing about you and I’m not really irked at all; I understand fully how partisan the average poster is and that any dissent is going to get piled on.
So, we’re allowed to disagree with scotus judges without being basement dwellers? I agree, both with that and your conclusion that it was the wrong ruling.
It’s just funny that I was mercilessly downvoted for pointing this out.
Question for you: was this ruling incorrect? If so, how do you square that with the majority of justices ruling that way? Or do you as a fellow armchair ianal basement dweller get special privileges when it comes to your legal opinions vs that if scotus judges?
All I’m saying is that if I’m POTUS and I’m considering a questionable “official act” i know who I’m going to to clear it first.
Please cite where in the ruling it says charges would be brought against him.
First, let me apologize i thought it was another poster who had linked to that.
Second, i addressed it, i didn’t ignore it. You ignored my rebuttal. But i will try again here:
Even what you quote here doesn’t say the court ruled it was true.
You’re just exposing your own ignorance, as often the court doesn’t bother to determine if the plaintiffs claims are true, they just assume they’re true and then rule they don’t have a case because they aren’t claiming someone broke the law.
This doesn’t say it is true, only that it doesn’t matter whether it’s true because it has no bearing on their ruling.
I’m blocking you now. Good bye.
Intellectual coward.
Agreed. But pretending that this has just been a one time thing doesnt do anything but make you look like you haven’t been paying attention at all