Why would we need hypotheticals, when we've had plenty of examples in the past, and threads about them?
I'm sure if you put your mind to it you could find an example and dredge it up from the PARD annals

Or that link about the billions Pelosi has been making in the stock market.... just because she's such a savvy investor. :/

I can't help but wonder if you're avoiding just answering a simple hypothetical because if the situation were different in accordance with the hypothetical, you would actually feel different and that there would be objection on your behalf? I guess you would be totally fine if Sotomayor and Soros were legitimate friends, and that if everything thus reported about Thomas/Crow also applied to them, you would have no objections or concerns about impropriety.



I'm sure there are no limits to the number of issues regarding corruption, including especially amongst Democrats.

It's really not a question about corruption. That's prevalent in politics.
The real issue is that MSM only see right leaning corruption.

Honestly... that worries me more than anything. When the legitimacy of the Fourth Estate crumbles... bad times are a-comin'.

And if your response to conversations of corruption concern as they pertain to anyone 'toward the right' is to always instead invoke your own corruption concerns about anyone 'towards the left', then nothing can ever be truly focused on.

like fox news doesnt call out the left? are you fucking joking lol

I don't answer it because its boring and we'd be leading the thread down a very predictable back and forth and gain nothing from it. I'd say what you expect me to say, you'd say what I expect you to say, either of us could be talking to a wall.
I'm sure there are previous similar storylines we could pull from and compare, and perhaps find my own posts in the past talking about them. Would you find me being hypocritical or consistent? Can I tell you with absolute certainty what that answer would be?
Seems a lot more interesting to me

Take a look at the campaign finance allegations for example. I've long pointed out that in normal evenhanded justice, the penalty for campaign finance fraud has been a minor fine as a slap on the wrist. Trying to spin it into 34 felonies and lock someone up for life, especially when its not even an actual underlying crime, is bogus. But it wasn't particularly damning when Hillary Clinton actually did it- and had to pay a fine- or when Ilhan Omar actually did it- and had to pay a fine. Its a 'who cares' kind of issue. Or when Joe Biden had classified documents next to his corvette. Or Hillary using a private email server. Etc etc

Agreed... but until MSM gets their act together again... someone has to take the other side.
I mean at 6 and 11PM every night, MSM brainwashes the country. They should be neutral.

This post was edited by Ghot on Apr 17 2023 05:05pm

I just find it odd how you'll type so much in order to avoid a very simple question, as the hypothetical serves the purpose of clarifying what is and is not an issue so that any discourse can continue. Your lack of openness to answering it, coupled with your fixation on Hillary Clinton or any other "Not in the title of this thread" example X, is fascinating.

Before one can talk about what potential consequences, if any, should take place, there would need to be agreement that some kind of infraction or impropriety took place. My understanding of your position thus far is that you actually don't see any issues with Supreme Court justices having this much financial enmeshment so long as they're legitimate friends and that they don't engage in explicit quid pro quo or talk directly or indirectly about the law?

If George soros bought rbj's house goom might have a stroke

This post was edited by thesnipa on Apr 17 2023 05:53pm