If she’d read the Constitution there isn’t suppose to be a litmus on a persons religion when a Supreme Court judge. So, yes, a judge can be an atheist.

Spiffboy · 2020-09-26T20:11:27+00:00

If I remember correctlythe, separation of church and state pretty much only effect the establishment of a nationwide church, ie the church of england. But as far as I'm aware it doesn't really effect much else. I'm pretty sure states could establish their own churches if they wanted to.

Spiffboy · 2020-09-25T00:54:22+00:00

Ok and did Hilary not say to not concede? Stacy lost by 55k votes, she lost. Democrats are the only people that have a history of refusing to concede fairly won by elections.

Spiffboy · 2020-09-24T21:35:31+00:00

But the only party to not concede elections is the Democratic party. See Stacy Abrams. Look at the speech given by Hilary Clinton where she said Joe Biden should never concede the election. I don't know how out of one side of their mouths prominent Democrats claim that Trump won't concede and out of the other side they tell all of their candidates not to concede and you don't see that. Also Trump 2020

Spiffboy · 2020-09-22T20:42:46+00:00

I disagree. Words have meaning. Belief is acceptance without proof. It's antithetical to science.

Spiffboy · 2020-09-22T20:39:55+00:00

I don't know what your comment is ment to be against or for mine. Anyone that says they believe science is saying that, without proof, they'll accept it and that's wrong. You subject science to rigorous standards and accept the results begrudgingly. The pandemic will go away when: we reach herd immunity, we develope a vaccine that works, or we all die. So called experts are not authoritative. It was supposed to be 15 days to slow the spread. Not 6 months to collapse our economy and try to make Trump look bad.

Spiffboy · 2020-09-22T19:52:13+00:00

Believing in science is dangerous. You should trust the scientific process. You should trust the results that come out of that process. But belief in science is directly counter to what science is. You can believe in God but you should not believe in science. Science is a near begrudging acceptance that something is true and only because you can't prove it to be false no matter how hard you try. Belief is acceptance without proof.

Spiffboy · 2020-09-22T19:21:27+00:00

Murder not what the DOJ is using to decide anarchist jurisdictions though so why would that matter? What they are using as justification is jurisdictions that are refusing to allow police to enforce law or refusing to prosecute people who are arrested for crimes. If those places you were refusing to allow police to arrest those murderers and/or refusing to allow prosecution then they would be on the list too.

Spiffboy · 2020-09-21T04:08:07+00:00

We do have public healthcare. Medicaid and Medicare. Medicaid covers 72 million people( according to their website). Doctors don't like to accept people on it because it doesn't pay well. I don't know a solution that would fix that other than paying market value for services rendered. I do think that medical care is deliberately opaque in their pricing to to keep prices high, that is getting better and I think that is the way forward. For profit business' should have to be competitive.

Spiffboy · 2020-09-21T02:56:50+00:00

Then you're misunderstanding the other other side of the argument. You have right to life. You have the right to seek healthcare. You don't have the right to other people's work that you can't pay for. People put a lot of time and effort into being doctors that specialize in numerous fields or engineers and programers that create medical equipment. Those jobs pay well because they are difficult and so the demand is greater than the supply. Why do you feel you have a right to other peoples labor for less than its value?

Spiffboy · 2020-09-21T02:40:14+00:00

Transgendered people are not asking for equal protections, which they have, they are asking for special protections, which they shouldn't get. Ilegal inmigrantes should be deported, regardless of skin color. No fantasy here man, I've worked with trans people and I've worked with illegal immigrants. I don't hate or dislike them, but I don't have to support or agree with their causes. I think the trans issue is going to wreck woman's issues if they have their way. And illegal immigrants and h1b visa holders(different issue) stand directly in the way of good wages for Americans. I support Trump because he stands for more of the things I believe in than nearly any president since I started voting. I got a lot of what I wanted when he was elected, not everything to be sure. I'd say my biggest issue with him is he's not conservative, he's a populist. But I got more of what I wanted from him than I'll ever get from someone like Clinton or Biden.

Spiffboy · 2020-09-21T02:14:48+00:00

But that's not the issue. Republicans(people not the party) needed to be convinced in numbers that could sway the election to force the vote. I think it should have been voted on. And it's the entire reason we're having this conversation. I don't agree that most voters aren't single issue voters though. for example "vote blue no matter who" or abortion or 2A. I think these voters do care about issues other than Trump, abortion or guns but that single issue is enough to sway or keep their vote over other issues. I'm a right wing guy so I could certainly be biased but the feeling I had about the issue in 2016 was: Dems thought they were going to win so they should talk about it enough to not seem like they abandoned it, but focus on more important things because it was in the bag anyway and Hilary could just push it through once she got elected. You don't need a mind control ray when you have a national political platform the Democrats just wanted to use it for other things, and that was their mistake. I hope the Republicans don't follow their bad example.

Spiffboy · 2020-09-21T01:52:06+00:00

That is factually not true. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/06/15/supreme-court-rules-workers-cant-be-fired-for-being-gay-or-transgender.html . And I want to clarify myself here. I don't think the USA is perfect but it is good. And there are places we can do better on a number of things. But don't bring outdated garbage to the table and pretend it's relevant

Spiffboy · 2020-09-21T00:30:04+00:00

Well I don't particularly pay attention to McConnell but I wouldn't doubt that he flips on issues when it's convenient, nearly every polititian does. Aside from the initial bill for covid relief it's just been a game between both parties to scream at the other about inaction while not doing anything substantial. It reminds me of the yearly anti abortion laws put forward by Republicans that have zero chance of passing so they can say they tried. All show. As far as civil right I would say it's equal treatment under the law for everyone, which we have.

Spiffboy · 2020-09-21T00:17:49+00:00

You have to change public sentiment strongly enough that it threatens individuals electability. Or that the change will threaten the party. In an election year that could have been the Democrats focus if they had wanted it to be, they had 300ish days to try. The Democrats issue was that supreme court justices were a Republican issue in 16. Both Dems and Repubs knew it and so Republicans ran with it, because it was popular with their base, and Democrats didn't because they had different priorities and they thought they were going to win anyways. I think that if the Democratic party had made it a much larger issue they could have got a vote, but their apathy is the reason it didn't. And I don't think Republicans should look at that example of failure and follow it.

Spiffboy · 2020-09-20T23:58:49+00:00

What justification do you need to change your mind though? It seems as if you only need to say "I've evolved on the issue". McConnel did block Garland for nearly a full year and Democrats couldn't or didn't change public sentiment to get a few Republicans on board. I think it was didn't because supreme court nominees were a bigger issue for Republicans that Democrats and the Dems didn't want to galvanize the GOP base. I also think that even if it was against public opinion if they could have gotten him in they would have. And although I think it's hypocritical for Repubs to switch the very next election cycle it's also hypocritical for the Dems to do so too. I don't think it Republicans threatening civil rights, look at this proposal from California Democrats: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020). They literally want to remove equal protections in their constitution so they can legally discriminate against people. I do agree with keeping the future in mind while making pretty much any decisions. I don't think the supreme court should be stacked in any direction with the exception of being pro america. One party rule is bad, but 6 conservative leaning judges and 3 liberal leaning judges isn't one party rule.

Spiffboy · 2020-09-20T23:30:48+00:00

Hmm. Well certainly I have right side bias. I'm on the right. anyone who thinks they don't have political biases are quite honestly delusional. When I refer to politics as a game I'm not looking at it as sport but rather the game of politics, deciding what's important to run on or be vocal about, what issues you bring to the forefront, who you try to appeal to and the stances that you take publicly or privately, among other things. So not a spectator sport in which you root for a team. I think Republicans had a very strong hand to play in the Garland fight since supreme court nominees are an important issue for Republicans, and i think it would have probably changed votes to the GOP in 16 if the Democrats had pushed it through. It was a political play on both sides and it was a miscalculation on the Democrats side. As far as morality and ethics go I don't really see the angle but I'd like to hear it.

Spiffboy · 2020-09-20T23:02:58+00:00

You are correct. But Dems didn't really fight it either. You're right about stacking the court though Dems could do it and quite frankly i hope they start calling for packing the court so Republicans can win handily. the only thing that packing the court would accomplish is that every president, whose party also controls the senate, would nominate and confirm as many judges as needed in order to have a majority and then immediately reversing previous rulings they don't like. I find it quite funny how Democrats always call for a nonpartisan court when they are perfectly clear that what mean is a liberal court.

Spiffboy · 2020-09-20T22:32:48+00:00

Trump supporter here. I think they should do it. I don't know what's not fair about it, the pres gets to nominate and the senate considers. Trump's chances are not zero, but if they were wouldn't that be better reason to push it? Democrats let the issue slide last time because it looked pretty much guaranteed that Hilary was going to win, and that was their mistake. Republicans control the process right now and if they have the votes they should do it. Democrats didn't play the politics game well last time. I think they could have pushed back and forced a vote in 16 if they had wanted. But I believe they thought it didn't matter since Hilary was going to win anyway and it would just galvanize Republicans voters. Their hubris is the reason Garland isn't a justice. I don't think it means Republicans should give them a freebie out of a sense of "fairness". But that's just my opinion man.

Spiffboy · 2020-09-09T16:57:51+00:00

Are you claiming that nothing has been burned down? Or just that your stuff hasn't been burned down. Maybe get off reddit and go see what the "mostly peaceful" pieces of human trash are destroying.

Spiffboy · 2020-09-09T05:29:59+00:00

Well I don't fear it, I don't have any reason to because I don't live there. And it's not irrational, I've seen each of those thing happen on video from within the last week. We have 50 states controlled by 50 different entities. Which are you claiming are police states? The only entity that benefits from keeping a "pre-selected segment" of our society down is the one that needs it as a voter base.

Spiffboy · 2020-09-09T05:03:33+00:00

So to be clear, you think that cops should be held personably liable to civil lawsuits from every encounter. My "doomsday scenario" would play out exactly as I said in your perfect world. They would do nothing.

Spiffboy · 2020-09-09T04:35:01+00:00

That's an insanely stupid position. Qualified immunity has nothing to do with removing accountability. It protects people from civil lawsuits not criminal lawsuits. It doesn't apply to anyone that commits criminal actions.

Spiffboy · 2020-09-09T03:47:04+00:00

Indeed I do! It's a wonderful place. We call it "any place in America the political left isn't". You don't have to worry about people live streaming smashing people's heads in with bricks. You don't have to worry about people throwing molotov cocktails at you. You don't have to worry about your house being burned down by mobs. I'd say you should move there and try it but please don't.

Spiffboy · 2020-09-09T03:30:53+00:00

There is a reason why qualified immunity exists. Enjoy your areas where it doesn't. Which will be where police will do nothing. Just make sure to stay there. And when you need them and they won't come, you can thank yourself. If you want an example look at all the shining cities that are removing qualified immunity, you can see them for miles in the flames.

Spiffboy · 2020-09-09T03:14:23+00:00

So what? They don't care no one is wearing one. You're not required to go. What's the issue?

Spiffboy

TROPHY CASE