That's why it would fuck over causality. If I destroyed 1 that could be the natural end of the electrons "life" of bouncing back and forth through time. I would need to destroy a 2nd which would then have to be the same electron from earlier in it's timeline.
CileTheSane
joined 1 year ago
Not what I said at all, but thank you for making it clear that you aren't interested in actually having a conversation because you don't bother to listen to what other people say. You just assume the other person said something you can disagree with.
change their tampon
I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.
I think you're seeing the reflection of your monitor, you can stop posting that everywhere.
So you encourage other people not to and pretend to be helping while in reality making things worse.
You're using bullshit to rationalise accepting the deaths of innocent people.
Nobody is "accepting the deaths", they are acknowledging the reality of the situation that significantly more people will die through inaction than action.
No one is saying "Vote and then wash your hands of it." Genocide is wrong so you need to do everything you can to prevent it. One of those things is vote, but it is not the only thing. You vote, and you continue to pressure the government to stop assisting in genocide.
That "that that" that was in the OP is grammatically correct.
The end state doesn't have to be at the end of time if the electron can travel backwards in time. It can go to the end, head back towards the beginning, and get destroyed somewhere in between.
Strictly speaking it would have to get destroyed at some point, or at least have something stop it from going back and forth, otherwise the universe would be all electron.
So I have to destroy 2 electrons to fuck over causality.
So if I can destroy 1 electron I destroy every electron?
Supreme Court justices are nominated by the president and then the house and Senate approve or deny the nomination. The current justices were nominated by Democrat majorities.
It's the Senate that approves nominations to the supreme Court.
Of the Supreme Court Justices that voted to overturn Roe v Wade:
Amy Coney Barrett was approved by a Republican controlled Senate.
Samuel A. Alito was approved in 2006 by a Republican controlled Senate.
Brett Kavanaugh was approved in 2018 by a Republican controlled Senate.
Neil M. Gorsuch was approved in 2017 by a Republican controlled Senate.
Clarence Thomas was approved in 1991 by a Democratic controlled Senate.
4 out of 5 of the Supreme Court justices that voted to overturn Roe v Wade were approved by Republican majorities. Two of which happened after the Republicans used their majority to block Obama from being able to nominate anyone to the Supreme Court. The one approved by Democrats happened 33 years ago when American Politics were significantly less partisan.
This is why I pushed you to stop speaking in metaphor and say something factual, because once you did you proved you were not speaking about actual reality.
Republicans abuse power to push through their agenda, and your response to that is to allow Republicans to continue to have enough power to continue to abuse the system while you blame Democrats for not stopping them. Your arguments make no sense in reality so you have to hide them behind metaphor.
"Why didn't Democrats stop them"? Because they did not have the seats to do so. Refusing to give them seats won't allow them to stop Republicans from overturning the next civil right while they continue to turn back the clock on progress.
So you're not actively trying to convince people not to vote for Harris?