|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jan 10, 2022 0:36:00 GMT
I mean, it is pretty telling about this board that a whole thread was started about and people are upset over Gorsuch’s incorrect info (which could be correct depending on context), but no one is upset about Sotomayor’s misinfo, which is incorrect in any context. And I say this as someone who actually likes and has met and talked to Sotomayor and never watched Fox News a day in my life. Let’s not pretend like this is an issue with only one side having misinformation and only one side being political. Of course it’s political. Most everything is these days. But this thread is about Gorsuch, so that’s why he is the main topic. I have no trouble saying that Sotomayor was wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by myshelly on Jan 10, 2022 0:41:03 GMT
I mean, it is pretty telling about this board that a whole thread was started about and people are upset over Gorsuch’s incorrect info (which could be correct depending on context), but no one is upset about Sotomayor’s misinfo, which is incorrect in any context. And I say this as someone who actually likes and has met and talked to Sotomayor and never watched Fox News a day in my life. Let’s not pretend like this is an issue with only one side having misinformation and only one side being political. Of course it’s political. Most everything is these days. But this thread is about Gorsuch, so that’s why he is the main topic. I have no trouble saying that Sotomayor was wrong. So why didn’t anyone start a thread about Sotomayor? |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 10, 2022 0:45:28 GMT
Of course it’s political. Most everything is these days. But this thread is about Gorsuch, so that’s why he is the main topic. I have no trouble saying that Sotomayor was wrong. So why didn’t anyone start a thread about Sotomayor? Talk about moving goal posts. First you asked why no one was talking about Sotomayor. Then when those posts were pointed out, calling her wrong is not enough, we have to start a thread about it? I think the OP already explained why she started this thread, before she knew about Sotomayor’s false statement. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jan 10, 2022 0:50:02 GMT
Is Sotomayor trying to use inaccurate information to block vaccine mandates? No? Then that’s why no one started a thread. We’re discussing Gorsuch’s misinformation which will be used to justify something we disagree with. If Sotomayor is bothering you, go start a thread yourself if you like, but don’t insist we start one if that’s not where our interests lie. myshelly |
|
|
|
Post by myshelly on Jan 10, 2022 0:51:05 GMT
Is Sotomayor trying to use inaccurate information to block vaccine mandates? No? Then that’s why no one started a thread. We’re discussing Gorsuch’s misinformation which will be used to justify something we disagree with. If Sotomayor is bothering you, go start a thread yourself if you like, but don’t insist we start one if that’s not where our interests lie. myshellySo you admit misinformation only bother you if it’s coming from the other side? When you agree with the goal, misinformation is fine. |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jan 10, 2022 0:54:37 GMT
Of course it’s political. Most everything is these days. But this thread is about Gorsuch, so that’s why he is the main topic. I have no trouble saying that Sotomayor was wrong. So why didn’t anyone start a thread about Sotomayor? Feel free to do that. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jan 10, 2022 0:56:25 GMT
Is Sotomayor trying to use inaccurate information to block vaccine mandates? No? Then that’s why no one started a thread. We’re discussing Gorsuch’s misinformation which will be used to justify something we disagree with. If Sotomayor is bothering you, go start a thread yourself if you like, but don’t insist we start one if that’s not where our interests lie. myshelly So you admit misinformation only bother you if it’s coming from the other side? When you agree with the goal, misinformation is fine. Nope. Everyone has said Sotomayor messed up. It has been discussed in this very thread. It just doesn’t merit a thread of its own, at least to me, because what she said does not contribute to the possibility of conservatives continuing to spread COVID around even more than it is already. It’s okay. You can start a thread about it you like. But you can’t require us to start one if it’s not our focus. There is never a shortage of public figure screw-ups to talk about, but we all get to choose what matters most to us. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 10, 2022 0:59:10 GMT
Is Sotomayor trying to use inaccurate information to block vaccine mandates? No? Then that’s why no one started a thread. We’re discussing Gorsuch’s misinformation which will be used to justify something we disagree with. If Sotomayor is bothering you, go start a thread yourself if you like, but don’t insist we start one if that’s not where our interests lie. myshelly So you admit misinformation only bother you if it’s coming from the other side? When you agree with the goal, misinformation is fine. No one agreed with the misinformation. We’ve already pointed out to you that there are multiple posts about Sotomayor’s false statement. The difference is that Gorsuch’s misinformation is more dangerous. He’s perpetuating the falsehood that covid is just like the flu, one of the reasons people refuse to get vaccinated. And Gorsuch is using false information as a reason to block the mandate. We already know how you feel about mask and vaccine mandates, I’m guessing that’s what your post is really about. |
|
|
|
Post by myshelly on Jan 10, 2022 1:00:55 GMT
So you admit misinformation only bother you if it’s coming from the other side? When you agree with the goal, misinformation is fine. Nope. Everyone has said Sotomayor messed up. It has been discussed in this very thread. It just doesn’t merit a thread of its own, at least to me, because what she said does not contribute to the possibility of conservatives continuing to spread COVID around even more than it is already. It’s okay. You can start a thread about it you like. But you can’t require us to start one if it’s not our focus. There is never a shortage of public figure screw-ups to talk about, but we all get to choose what matters most to us. You said Sotomayor isn’t using the misinfo to block mandates, implying you’re ok with her misinfo, but not his. You have a political slant. You’re convinced conservatives are trying to block mandates as opposed to trying to follow the Constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Jan 10, 2022 1:07:43 GMT
Nope. Everyone has said Sotomayor messed up. It has been discussed in this very thread. It just doesn’t merit a thread of its own, at least to me, because what she said does not contribute to the possibility of conservatives continuing to spread COVID around even more than it is already. It’s okay. You can start a thread about it you like. But you can’t require us to start one if it’s not our focus. There is never a shortage of public figure screw-ups to talk about, but we all get to choose what matters most to us. You said Sotomayor isn’t using the misinfo to block mandates, implying you’re ok with her misinfo, but not his. You have a political slant. You’re convinced conservatives are trying to block mandates as opposed to trying to follow the Constitution. “Convinced” might be too strong. I would guess very likely. But who the hell knows? |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 10, 2022 1:08:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by myshelly on Jan 10, 2022 1:13:08 GMT
I’m gonna go with 10th Amendment for starters. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jan 10, 2022 1:16:26 GMT
Nope. Everyone has said Sotomayor messed up. It has been discussed in this very thread. It just doesn’t merit a thread of its own, at least to me, because what she said does not contribute to the possibility of conservatives continuing to spread COVID around even more than it is already. It’s okay. You can start a thread about it you like. But you can’t require us to start one if it’s not our focus. There is never a shortage of public figure screw-ups to talk about, but we all get to choose what matters most to us. You said Sotomayor isn’t using the misinfo to block mandates, implying you’re ok with her misinfo, but not his. You have a political slant. You’re convinced conservatives are trying to block mandates as opposed to trying to follow the Constitution. I am not implying that I’m okay with her misinformation. There are not enough hours in the day for each of us to pursue every wrong thing someone says. We get to pick and choose what is most important to us. And of course I have a political slant. That’s how I figure out what’s most important to me and what isn’t. |
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jan 10, 2022 1:19:25 GMT
I’m gonna go with 10th Amendment for starters. What about that 1905 Supreme Court case that says vaccine mandates are acceptable? |
|
|
|
Post by myshelly on Jan 10, 2022 1:27:07 GMT
I’m gonna go with 10th Amendment for starters. What about that 1905 Supreme Court case that says vaccine mandates are acceptable? That is a case that says a STATE can mandate vaccines. The issue before the Court currently is whether the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can. Two separate issues. The 1905 decision is not precedent for this case. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 10, 2022 1:44:10 GMT
I’m gonna go with 10th Amendment for starters. Possibly. I'm not a constitutional scholar but Biden's legal team clearly thought there was a case to be made that the 1970 OSHA act gives them the authority to issue a mandate. Regardless of what I think, the conservative Supreme Court justices seem to be indicating that they will block the mandate for private employers, so you win. |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jan 10, 2022 1:56:37 GMT
I’m gonna go with 10th Amendment for starters. Possibly. I'm not a constitutional scholar but Biden's legal team clearly thought there was a case to be made that the 1970 OSHA act gives them the authority to issue a mandate. Regardless of what I think, the conservative Supreme Court justices seem to be indicating that they will block the mandate for private employers, so you win. There are ways for the federal government to compel states to issue laws/mandates of their own, by withholding funding for certain important items if terms are not met. They do it with education, highway laws, and all kinds of stuff. The feds are currently withholding almost $2B in Harvey relief from Texas because of some missing paperwork, and the GOP here is pretty sure (and I actually agree with them) that there are some politics being played, but it's not clear over what. Perhaps they're trying to compel Abbott to stop standing in the way of businesses and county leaders who want to do the right thing with Covid. |
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jan 10, 2022 16:28:04 GMT
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456 
|
Post by sassyangel on Jan 10, 2022 16:38:33 GMT
So he just made a factual comment to make his case that …. didn’t validate his case? I don’t know what’s worse, lol (and yes that’s snark, I would definitely much rather they made factual statements, even if doing so completely undermines their point.) It’s why Sotomayor’s comment annoyed me as much as it did, because she didn’t *need* to do it, to make her point. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 10, 2022 20:21:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 10, 2022 21:40:10 GMT
So, the number deaths is fixed and no longer misinformation, but that doesn't fix his analogy that covid is like the flu.
|
|
