Message from @Sean π
Discord ID: 757726063257321522
that between him and Abba
Even though I clearly said I dont.
he's a pathological fapulator
go do that in snake pit maybe
Fappy McFappington
Yeah ok.
Fapalonious Monk
only a wrongful zealot or queer worries about another mans wiener unless he is in adultery or fornication
Fapulatron
<:nuke:494352215713251328>
spare me the new age terms, iam not familiar with such
these are 4chan words
Proverbs 9:8
βReprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.β
Ok, I rebuke you.
is scorn or love being made?
are you sowing in dead soil?
Now love me, by stopping with your self-righteous blathering
I believe that the President should appoint a man to the US Supreme Court, because God intended for the man to lead the household, and I believe that applies to all scales of leadership in church and government.
When we deviate from what God intended, we see dysfunction in society, and I believe this is confirmed in what we see around us today.
Thank you, love you all.
200+ messages.....wow this week's question must be a really good one if i can find it lol
Should The President appoint a man or a woman to the US Supreme Court?
I had trouble myself finding it hahaha it's buried in the messages
A man would be better, I had predicted in a discussion on here that the trap for Trump would be to send another woman up there. In the short term picking a woman is a decent political move that may pay off, but in the long term it's not a good idea, the woman is more likely to flip on key issues
plus the argument is that a woman is needed for representation since RBG is a woman, but this argument is nullfied imo since yea all ready have that dyke Kagana and the illegal Sotomayor
yea lmao
I donβt think gender changes or really signifies anything
well it definitely does, especialyl for the Supreme Court
> A man would be better, I had predicted in a discussion on here that the trap for Trump would be to send another woman up there. In the short term picking a woman is a decent political move that may pay off, but in the long term it's not a good idea, the woman is more likely to flip on key issues
@Japheth well put
in case you haven't noticed so-caleld "conservative" women usualyl aren't
Trump is obviously pandering to women lamo
it's part pandering, but part of it is ideological trap
Everybody likes to call Trump stupid and shit but itβs just not true whatsoever
like i said the high ideological argument is representation and then especialyl in replacing Ginsberg whom was not jsut a long serving female but a feminist icon
What does the Supreme Court even do
Highest court in the land is all I know
my strategy when we were discussing this elsewhere would be to instead nomiante a conservative black man. This fulfills some of the pomp and politics of the election, the representation argument, and if we pick wisely getting one in the mold of Clarence Thomas, insulates us against possible compromisers with the liberals
the Supreme Court's original function was to interpret and clarify on matters of the Constitution, but the SCOTUS in the modern era has been used as a way to force through some of the most egregious leftwing abominations namely abortion and the great blasphemy against marriage
this has made the SCOTUS now a key battlefield in US politics since on one hand they can be used past their bounds as unoffiicial law makers, and on the other hand to legally undo all the abominations and whoredoms perpetrated in the past half a century the conservatives have to retake the SCOTUS and overturn the madness
Gotcha