Week Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 I'm not finding victim blaming, rape apologia, and revisionist history to be particularly compelling 'pro-Trump' arguments. That's just me though - full functional frontal cortex and no history or popping deworming pills for a viral disease. Maybe more swipes at Hunter would be more compelling. Ser Scot A Ellison 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 1 hour ago, DMC said: Breyer indicates support for age limits for Supreme Court Justices: I may be way off on this, but I can't recall any SC justice - sitting or retired - that has publicly come out in favor of term limits in any way. So, kinda a big deal. We all know Perry is an idiot, but his 18 year wheel proposal was pretty spot on. Every president should get two nominations and if they want to select someone already on the court that's fine. There really should be an understood retirement age though, but that goes for every political office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 18 minutes ago, Week said: I'm not finding victim blaming, rape apologia, and revisionist history to be particularly compelling 'pro-Trump' arguments. That's just me though - full functional frontal cortex and no history or popping deworming pills for a viral disease. Maybe more swipes at Hunter would be more compelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 2 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said: We all know Perry is an idiot, but his 18 year wheel proposal was pretty spot on. Every president should get two nominations and if they want to select someone already on the court that's fine. I think the wheel proposal is a bit convoluted. Simply having 18-year terms for all new justices is much simpler. It'd also practically enact a retirement age - no president is going to nominate a justice old enough to serve past 75 at the oldest. Of course, what to do with sitting justices would be much more difficult to figure out. Ser Scot A Ellison 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigoTheCarpathian Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 1 hour ago, DMC said: Of course, what to do with sitting justices would be much more difficult to figure out. JGP and DMC 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 Heh. I mean, the obvious answer is just to have them grandfathered in (pretty apt term too!) and wait until the seat is vacant for the new legislation to apply. However, I suspect many interests and subsequently many MCs would be adamantly opposed to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tears of Lys Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 8 hours ago, Bironic said: It’s kind of victim blaming isn’t it? I wouldn’t call Trump a womanizer either, he thinks he is one, but as you stated most women would not engage in any sexual activities with him, which is basically the opposite of being a womanizer (aka a person that is very attractive to females) womanizer noun /ˈwʊmənaɪzə(r)/ /ˈwʊmənaɪzər/ (British English also womaniser) (disapproving) a man who has sexual relationships with many different womenSYNONYM philanderer I don't mean to shout at you, but I can't turn the formatting off. It was copied and pasted from the Oxford Dictionary. Ser Scot A Ellison 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 Pfft you don't have to link to articles we have a whole video series on it Tears of Lys, Bironic and Week 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bironic Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 10 minutes ago, Tears of Lys said: womanizer noun /ˈwʊmənaɪzə(r)/ /ˈwʊmənaɪzər/ (British English also womaniser) (disapproving) a man who has sexual relationships with many different womenSYNONYM philanderer I don't mean to shout at you, but I can't turn the formatting off. It was copied and pasted from the Oxford Dictionary. Well I assume that having sexual relationships with lots of women means that you are attractive to women and they are thus willing to have sex with you… Otherwise a serial rapist is also a womanizer… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 2 hours ago, DMC said: I think the wheel proposal is a bit convoluted. Simply having 18-year terms for all new justices is much simpler. It'd also practically enact a retirement age - no president is going to nominate a justice old enough to serve past 75 at the oldest. Of course, what to do with sitting justices would be much more difficult to figure out. I just think it seems fair to give every presidential term two appointments. It just gets complicated if someone dies, but that would also serve as a reason to not nominate someone that's too old to serve it out realistically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 2 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said: I just think it seems fair to give every presidential term two appointments. K. I don't view this as a priority, and again, I think it over-complicates things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A True Kaniggit Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said: I just think it seems fair to give every presidential term two appointments. It just gets complicated if someone dies, but that would also serve as a reason to not nominate someone that's too old to serve it out realistically. Isn’t this a made up problem? I thought what happens now is Presidents who serve at most 8 years nominate people who can serve for over half a century. Edited March 24 by A True Kaniggit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 25 minutes ago, Tears of Lys said: I don't mean to shout at you, but I can't turn the formatting off. Formatting a quote is easy and there 2 ways I know how to do that. When you first paste in your quote, in the bottom of the field, there is a light pink message that says "Paste as plain text instead." Click on that and your post will format to plain text. ~or~ When you click on paste, a dialog box should come up and one of the options offered is "Paste as plain text." Click on that and your text will show as plain text. Give it a try! Tears of Lys and Phylum of Alexandria 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 1 hour ago, DMC said: K. I don't view this as a priority, and again, I think it over-complicates things. Isn't the whole point of the SC to over-complicate simple shit? 1 hour ago, A True Kaniggit said: Isn’t this a made up problem? You're a made up problem! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A True Kaniggit Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 8 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said: You're a made up problem! I'm a self enforced problem! Still 0 warning points, need a prison rep! What, what! (Apparently being an idiot isn't a punishable offense ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 20 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said: I'm a self enforced problem! Still 0 warning points, need a prison rep! What, what! (Apparently being an idiot isn't a punishable offense ) You can have an honorary one due to penguins smelling horrifically bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A True Kaniggit Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said: You can have an honorary one due to penguins smelling horrifically bad? Pfft. Don’t smell half as bad as wet humans. Edit: And honorary awards aren’t worth shit! All of civilization knows this! Edited March 24 by A True Kaniggit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DireWolfSpirit Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 Senator Murkowski announcing she will not endorse or vote for Trump in November. Murkowski is done with Trump. And the powerful Republican won’t rule out leaving GOP https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/24/politics/lisa-murkowski-done-with-trump Larry of the Lawn 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 10 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said: And the powerful Republican won’t rule out leaving GOP Yeah I saw this this morning. It doesn't matter. I fully expect Murkowski to change her party affiliation to Independent if Trump wins in November. But unless she stops caucusing with the Republicans, it makes no difference. Just like Sinema's switch. Zorral and Prince of the North 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 (edited) 2 hours ago, Bironic said: Well I assume that having sexual relationships with lots of women means that you are attractive to women and they are thus willing to have sex with you… Otherwise a serial rapist is also a womanizer… I do not think your assumption is correct, at least not if you are defining "attractive" as "attractive in terms of immediate physical attraction." Trump is going to be attractive as a potential sexual partner to lots of women just because he is rich and powerful, regardless of what they think of his physical looks. And many others who have been "womanizers" in history have been successful at it because of their wealth, power, or forceful personalities, not because they are particularly handsome. Edited March 24 by Ormond remove double word Tears of Lys and Bironic 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts