You’re showing some conflict of interest, but come on.
Yup, that's generally what "in the pocket of the rich" means. It means you have a conflict of interest to rule in favor of the rich because they have given you shit. I sincerely do not understand what part of that you're hung up on.
He just ruled on roe v wade, show me how he’s in the pockets of the rich for that ruling
Just because somebody is in the pocket of the rich doesn't mean that every single ruling will have something to do with money. You have an unrealistic expectation here as well.
If you're looking for rulings that blatantly side with the rich, the citizens united ruling is the place to start.
Or anything, come on, you said it, make your point.
See the above links.
You said the system is broken and it’s because you get called a communist by someone online.
No I did not. If you're going to spend the time to debate you should at least understand what people have said.
So you’re sad because vote isn’t overriding every one elses?
Nope. Never said that either.
I don’t know what you want me to say, to you not getting your way every election
I want you to acknowledge that there is no such thing as a simple solution for these problems. You keep saying "oh, just do X if Y doesn't work", but that's not the reality of the situation, these problems require significant and complicated change.
doesn’t mean that we should actively go against our foundation of the nation. Sorry weed isn’t legalized, doesn’t mean that we should remove the judicial branch from the government.
Already covered that part:
"I don’t mean to say that legislation should be through the judicial branch"
You can thank the Chevron Deference case for that. Hopefully this SC court rules on that next year.
The supreme court is also in the pockets of the rich though.
Get involved. Vote for better candidates.
I do, and then those candidates typically don't get very far because they get called communists for daring to say that maybe healthcare shouldn't be for profit.
If the people want legislation, they should go through the legislative branch.
How is that a reasonable expectation? I don't mean to be glib, this is a legitimate question. The chances that any given policy gets passed through congress and becomes a law is 30% regardless of public support:
So even when 99% of the population agrees on a bill, it still only has a 30% chance of passing. Bills that share the interests of the rich do not have this effect. They instead have this effect:
I don't mean to say that legislation should be through the judicial branch, but to me, treating the issue as simple as "go through the legislative branch" seems to miss the context that our legislation branch isn't good for anything other than giving money to the rich. So if the people want legislation, how should they reasonably be expected to make it happen?
It’s my right to disown any queer children I may or may not have, and it’s the school’s duty to help.
I could never be so proud to be so hateful. And I thought the republican party claimed to be the party of personal responsibility, and therefore, the responsibility to provide for your children no matter what?
I presume that’s the opinion of the people downvoting you.
The oil lobby has paid copious amounts of money to propagandize the population, and to bribe republican politicians to continue their policy of laissez-faire.
That's because you were supporting a policy that explicitly permits an action that can lead to children being harmed. When somebody outs another person as being LGBTQ+ it can fuck up their lives hard. Teachers and councilors shouldn't be able to do that. It is a policy that directly undermines the trust students have in their teachers and councilors.
You've confused gender for sex, which are two different things. Sex is assigned at birth, whereas gender is performative. You behave, think, dress, etc your gender.
I wouldn’t trust any child to make an adequately informed decision
There are children who spend years of their childhood socially transitioned in some way or another. If they've done so, (which is more or less what the medical requirements are), and still after years are ok with their choice to have socially transitioned, and couple that with medical professionals being responsible, I don't see how there is an issue.
I also suspect the top surgery is more meant for people who are born inter sex, because I know if I was born inter sex, and identified as a man, I would not want to keep having man titties.
who talk about being the opposite sex or about being some other form of LGBTQIA+ when they haven’t even developed sexual attraction yet.
Gender and sexual attraction are two different things. You don't need to have any sexual attraction to have a gender identity. For instance, an ex of mine was ace, but she was still a woman. And gender identity starts forming as early as age 2:
I did, see above.
Reading something doesn't mean anything if you don't understand it.
See above and actually read in good faith.
I can't explain something to somebody who doesn't want to listen to the explanation.
You can lead a horse to water...
No, it's just hard to talk with people who do not do so in good faith.
I think I'm alright. I'm not going to waste my time any further.
Why say anything if you're just gonna misrepresent what I've said?
Yup, that's generally what "in the pocket of the rich" means. It means you have a conflict of interest to rule in favor of the rich because they have given you shit. I sincerely do not understand what part of that you're hung up on.
Just because somebody is in the pocket of the rich doesn't mean that every single ruling will have something to do with money. You have an unrealistic expectation here as well.
If you're looking for rulings that blatantly side with the rich, the citizens united ruling is the place to start.
Here is another good place to start: https://time.com/5793956/supreme-court-loves-rich/
See the above links.
No I did not. If you're going to spend the time to debate you should at least understand what people have said.
Nope. Never said that either.
I want you to acknowledge that there is no such thing as a simple solution for these problems. You keep saying "oh, just do X if Y doesn't work", but that's not the reality of the situation, these problems require significant and complicated change.
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-ethics-documents-conflicts-9fa2847e60e11601c872c3ba3eea12a3
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-investigation-reveals-potential-conflicts-of-interest-for-supreme-court-justices (Same root source but a 2nd take on it)
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/more-clarence-thomas-undisclosed-freebies-rich-1234785233/
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/07/1168649656/justice-thomas-trips
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/04/08/high-court-has-been-siding-with-rich-against-poor-since-nixon/
I never said the system is wrong because people disagree with me.
I'm just pointing out that these solutions you are giving aren't anywhere near as effective as you seem to think they are.
Already covered that part:
"I don’t mean to say that legislation should be through the judicial branch"
The supreme court is also in the pockets of the rich though.
I do, and then those candidates typically don't get very far because they get called communists for daring to say that maybe healthcare shouldn't be for profit.
That one actually got removed because the owner got banned. The owner was posting some absolutely crazy shit.
How is that a reasonable expectation? I don't mean to be glib, this is a legitimate question. The chances that any given policy gets passed through congress and becomes a law is 30% regardless of public support:
So even when 99% of the population agrees on a bill, it still only has a 30% chance of passing. Bills that share the interests of the rich do not have this effect. They instead have this effect:
I don't mean to say that legislation should be through the judicial branch, but to me, treating the issue as simple as "go through the legislative branch" seems to miss the context that our legislation branch isn't good for anything other than giving money to the rich. So if the people want legislation, how should they reasonably be expected to make it happen?
I could never be so proud to be so hateful. And I thought the republican party claimed to be the party of personal responsibility, and therefore, the responsibility to provide for your children no matter what?
I don't mind at all.
The oil lobby has paid copious amounts of money to propagandize the population, and to bribe republican politicians to continue their policy of laissez-faire.
Trans people are not new, and there is plenty of data. And the conclusion to that data among medical professionals is that gender affirming care is the best way to help people.
That's because you were supporting a policy that explicitly permits an action that can lead to children being harmed. When somebody outs another person as being LGBTQ+ it can fuck up their lives hard. Teachers and councilors shouldn't be able to do that. It is a policy that directly undermines the trust students have in their teachers and councilors.
You've confused gender for sex, which are two different things. Sex is assigned at birth, whereas gender is performative. You behave, think, dress, etc your gender.
Conservatives would just complain about it if he did.
Lefists care way less about Biden than people think.
There are children who spend years of their childhood socially transitioned in some way or another. If they've done so, (which is more or less what the medical requirements are), and still after years are ok with their choice to have socially transitioned, and couple that with medical professionals being responsible, I don't see how there is an issue.
I also suspect the top surgery is more meant for people who are born inter sex, because I know if I was born inter sex, and identified as a man, I would not want to keep having man titties.
Gender and sexual attraction are two different things. You don't need to have any sexual attraction to have a gender identity. For instance, an ex of mine was ace, but she was still a woman. And gender identity starts forming as early as age 2:
https://www.healthychildren.org/English/ages-stages/gradeschool/Pages/Gender-Identity-and-Gender-Confusion-In-Children.aspx
Here is a good starting resource that can help break down the differences in these definitions:
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/996319297/gender-identity-pronouns-expression-guide-lgbtq
That's not a good source of info:
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/american-college-pediatricians
Do you have a better one?