Blaine

Congratulations! You just fell for the “Genetic Fallacy”, one of the more common Logical Fallacies. Please do some research and try to do better in the future.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

Let’s just say that, hypothetically, the OP didn’t hold a pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli viewpoint. In that case, would they have to lie and add those disclaimers in order to be “well mannered”?

My point is that anyone should be able to ask a simple question about why South Africa are the ones filing this case at the ICJ. It shouldn’t matter what their overarching beliefs are, nor should they be required to submit their liberal bona fides before they are allowed ask the question.

That’s not good manners, that’s an echo chamber.

Only on Lemmy would you need to add all of those disclaimers before asking a legitimate question.

I mean… even the Harvard Crimson has been posting op-eds from folks on the Academic Integrity Committee and student government calling for her resignation.

She fucked around (50+ instances of plagiarism) and found out (forced to resign).

Isn’t this a pretty standard practice across the world? If someone has extensive ties to and/or sympathies for a specific regime, they’ll be more susceptible to coercion and compromise by that regime. Why purposely put them in the place where they are most likely to be coerced and/or compromised?

You have to weigh the benefit (their familiarity with local perspectives and customs) against the cost (increased risk of counter-intel failures).

There’s a reason Starfleet sends Captain Picard far away to the Romulan border when the Borg are attacking Earth. Or am I missing something?

There’s an amazing alternate timeline somewhere where Jared Kushner and Hunter Biden are cellmates in a Federal Prison somewhere, and nobody can question whether the DOJ is politicized because folks from both sides frequently go to jail when they commit crimes.

Please don’t put words in my mouth, or assume that I’m a conservative. Personally, I don’t see how a president could be impeached for something he did as a Vice President, no matter what past transgressions the Republicans end up finding related to Hunter Biden.

I wasn’t suggesting that Clarence Thomas not recuse himself because his wife wasn’t the judge, I just didn’t understand how her involvement in the insurrection had anything to do with a court case about interpreting the 14th amendment. And I’ve changed my mind on the recusal question after reading some of the good faith replies folks were nice enough to post.

Fair enough, you convinced me. I was originally only thinking of this as a limited case regarding the 14th amendment. But if the supreme Court rules against Trump in this case, they’d be ruling that there was an insurrection, which could open his wife up to legal liability on that front. Based on that new understanding, I’d agree that Clarence Thomas should recuse himself.

Would this ruling in any way affect his wife? She hadn’t sworn an oath to uphold the constitution, nor is she running for office. So how exactly is she relevant to a case about the 14th amendment?

Nobody is going to vote for Trump because of this. But it WILL cause enough folks to get dejected and not vote at all, and that’s all it’ll take for Trump to win. Democrats need a candidate people can be excited about voting for, or they WILL lose.

The “but the other guy is worse!” approach won’t work this time.