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.

Take a break.

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.

She could have some illness, I have no idea.

But your evidence of such is two videos, one from 7 years ago when and one misrepresenting her acting shocked from 6 years ago.

If you think this is even remotely convincing that she is going to die in the next 6 months, it’s not me suffering from delusion.

You even know the video was misleading, which is why you posted it without context. You’re desperate to avoid admitting you were wrong, and maybe even in this case easily duped by propaganda…so it has to be me that is foolish and making up excuses.

You think you see yourself in me, which is why this has you so frustrated. But I assure you, it’s your shortcoming alone here.

Wait you think her poorly acting like she’s surprised is ill health? Holy shit you’re stretching.

Are you suggesting that she won’t make it till Jan? Because that just ridiculous if you have to point to something that happened seven years ago to prove it.

Shed be finishing up her second term and there is no evidence that she is in some poor health. It seems you keep mistaking Trump’s shortcomings for Clinton’s.

In 2016 many people I read thought a Trump presidency would literally be the end of US democracy

And it almost was. Remember, he lost an election and tried to send fake electors in to declare him president. When that didn’t work, he worked up his cultists into attacking the capitol in order to threaten pence into not certifying the election. It was so dangerously close to a constitutional crisis that Republicans and Democrats banded together to say that the VP does not have this power.

Also trump nominated three members of scotus, and it was that majority that just opened the door for the president to commit all kinds of crime with immunity.

The pain of his last presence is still playing out, and it doesn’t look good.

I’m more concerned that if he wins again, he’ll complete gut the government and even if he does step aside when his term is up, the damage will be done and we will have no ability to tackle some of the biggest issues facing us: namely climate change.

No way in hell would Clinton have been even remotely as corrupt as Trump. You’re just projecting the fact that you are using any excuse to excuse his corruption.

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.

I’m generally pretty generous when it comes to realizing I’m hearing one side of the story and that it’s always much more complicated.

But, dear God man, if what he says is even remotely true and she was hovering over him while he was sleeping, and then when he awoke she asked if he would murder someone for her, and then what he plans to do with their cat after the murder, that’s not just being “genuinely afraid” and acting irrationally when in the middle of being very afraid.

She might be suffering from some anxiety that she needs to address, but let’s not play down how disturbing this is…especially because he called it “the usual.”