phdave wrote:I have been super excited and motivated thinking about the opportunity to vote Trump out of office, since 2016. But I saw some good Biden polls and saw enthusiasm among Biden supporters in early voting, so I guess I'm not going to bother voting.

phdave wrote:I have been super excited and motivated thinking about the opportunity to vote Trump out of office, since 2016. But I saw some good Biden polls and saw enthusiasm among Biden supporters in early voting, so I guess I'm not going to bother voting.

06hawkalum wrote:

Werthless wrote:Am I the only one that didn't realize that Sexual Preference is an offensive term? No idea, let alone any idea that it was some sort of dog whistle for right wingers.

Preference implies one chooses to whom they are sexually attracted, whereas orientation implies that sexuality is hardwired.

traderdave wrote:Barrett her view pretty succinctly :

"I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn't change over time, and it's not up to me to update it"

I am at an intellectual disadvantage so I cannot debate her (or anyone else on the issue) but that view seems incredibly short-sighted and, candidly, a bit spineless.

Monkeyboy wrote:

traderdave wrote:Barrett her view pretty succinctly :

"I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn't change over time, and it's not up to me to update it"

I am at an intellectual disadvantage so I cannot debate her (or anyone else on the issue) but that view seems incredibly short-sighted and, candidly, a bit spineless.

RIP women's suffrage. The writers of the Constitution didn't mean for women to vote, so they can't vote.

This is the worst kind of person to put on the court. She is clearly a dishonest activist judge.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

traderdave wrote:Barrett her view pretty succinctly :

"I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn't change over time, and it's not up to me to update it"

I am at an intellectual disadvantage so I cannot debate her (or anyone else on the issue) but that view seems incredibly short-sighted and, candidly, a bit spineless.

RIP women's suffrage. The writers of the Constitution didn't mean for women to vote, so they can't vote.

This is the worst kind of person to put on the court. She is clearly a dishonest activist judge.

This is the worst kind of argument. Do better.

traderdave wrote:I am just going to post this whole presentation from Sen. Whitehouse about "dark money" is running US courts (its about 29 mins long):

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

traderdave wrote:Barrett her view pretty succinctly :

"I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn't change over time, and it's not up to me to update it"

I am at an intellectual disadvantage so I cannot debate her (or anyone else on the issue) but that view seems incredibly short-sighted and, candidly, a bit spineless.

RIP women's suffrage. The writers of the Constitution didn't mean for women to vote, so they can't vote.

This is the worst kind of person to put on the court. She is clearly a dishonest activist judge.

This is the worst kind of argument. Do better.

I'm starting to feel a little bad for you. Can I get you some soup or something?

Werthless wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:

Werthless wrote:Am I the only one that didn't realize that Sexual Preference is an offensive term? No idea, let alone any idea that it was some sort of dog whistle for right wingers.

Preference implies one chooses to whom they are sexually attracted, whereas orientation implies that sexuality is hardwired.

One is apparently offensive, too!

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/1 ... nce-429249

Uh oh, Biden needs to apologize too.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democr ... ence-biden

NPR needs to apologize, too! https://www.npr.org/2020/06/15/87724371 ... rimination

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

traderdave wrote:Barrett her view pretty succinctly :

"I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn't change over time, and it's not up to me to update it"

I am at an intellectual disadvantage so I cannot debate her (or anyone else on the issue) but that view seems incredibly short-sighted and, candidly, a bit spineless.

RIP women's suffrage. The writers of the Constitution didn't mean for women to vote, so they can't vote.

This is the worst kind of person to put on the court. She is clearly a dishonest activist judge.

This is the worst kind of argument. Do better.

I'm starting to feel a little bad for you. Can I get you some soup or something?

If you've read it, you would probably know the Constitution as originally passed does nothing to preclude women from voting. Furthermore if you've read the Constitution, you would note it has a provision for amendments. If you've read the 19th Amendment, you would know it prohibits denial of voting rights based on sex.

There are plenty of ways you could criticize her. Why would you pick the dumbest?

The Dude wrote:Would not be surprised if he never had covid

jerseyhoya wrote:

Werthless wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:

Werthless wrote:Am I the only one that didn't realize that Sexual Preference is an offensive term? No idea, let alone any idea that it was some sort of dog whistle for right wingers.

Preference implies one chooses to whom they are sexually attracted, whereas orientation implies that sexuality is hardwired.

One is apparently offensive, too!

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/1 ... nce-429249

Uh oh, Biden needs to apologize too.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democr ... ence-biden

NPR needs to apologize, too! https://www.npr.org/2020/06/15/87724371 ... rimination

Monkeyboy wrote:

The Dude wrote:Would not be surprised if he never had covid

It's all a show with him. Everything is about marketing the product.

I'm starting to come around to this possibility. I figured he had it because so many others got it, but I'm skeptical he could have recovered this quickly from lung/breathing issues. They just don't heal that fast in a fat, old guy. If he did recover that fast, I demand the healthcare he's getting.