| > So maybe people that will be dead in five years shouldn't be deciding social issues for the next sixty. You say it as if you know for sure you won't be dead in five years. It's nice to be a prophet. > The silent generation had their lifetime "where men were MEN, women stayed in the kitchen, and gays didn't exist!" Sorry, it's a load of hateful baloney. That generation fought for real civil rights. This generation fights for right not to be served sushi because it's cultural appropriation, not to be subjected to a words of a slightly controversial speaker, because it's "unsafe", and needs coloring books and play-dough to cope with losing an election. That's the generation that seriously claims they feel physically unsafe when somebody challanges their beliefs to the point of being unable to function and needing to be sequestered in a specially designated space, or they will break down completely. Not that's not I am saying about them, that's what they say about themselves. And that's the people claiming to have superior role? Puh-lease. You wanted play-dough, you get play-dough. > It's not 100% certain, but the odds are very good if any of Ginsberg, Breyer, or Kennedy are replaced. Keep talking about disenfranchising your opponents, and 4 years of Trump become 8, and you get it for sure. > Is Trump going to nominate himself for the Supreme Court, then? Nope, but it is reasonable to think the will nominate somebody who thinks like him. Otherwise all talk about who he's going to nominate is pointless. > You're deluding yourself if you think the USSC in its current state is anything but extremely hyper-partisan. And by "extremely hyper-partisan" you mean "not always deciding how I like it." > But Trump voters made the gamble with my marriage, not theirs. Votes for Trump had literally nothing to do with gay marriage question. It wasn't an issue in the campaign, and Trump himself is on record saying it's settled. That's what his voters voted for. So really there's no gamble, there's no there there. It's done, it's ok to move on. Using this question in order to criticize Trump could lead to only one outcome - when someone other than Trump arises who thinks it's not settled, he'd look like someone discussing legitimate current issue of the day, not something that was decided and agreed on years ago. Do you really want to fight for that? > I'll respond with an equally compelling counter to your argument here -- "yeah huh, it does so!" Except you started with such argument. If you claim you proved Fermat theorem, it's on you to provide the proof. If you claim equal vote is unfair, it's on you to prove so. So far your proof was mostly whining about how old folks ruined everything. That's not a proof, it's just bellyaching. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_(climatology) Nice story. Except nobody knows where it is, what it means and how it works. It's basically a fairy tale. Nobody ever demonstrated any scientific proof of existence of it. |