Clarence Thomas Hit With Two New Issues in 24 Hours

[DarkHunter]

19 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Do you not see the difference between a Supreme Court Justice receiving five thousand dollars in gifts versus five million dollars in gifts?

No shame, numbers can be hard.

So you are suggesting that ethics violations and corruption begins at a specific value amount, what specific value amount is it ok for a Supreme Court Justice to not disclose gifts.

Of course the most pretentious troller here would quickly move to insults but expecting maturity from you is probably a bit much.

Edited July 12 by DarkHunter

[DarkHunter]

1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

You are assuming the others got gifts.  If they got nothing, then of course they would report that they got no gifts.

Apparently you didn't bother to read the link, I guess doing so would of hurt your argument.

"From January 2004 to December 2023, the nine justices accepted 344 gifts valued at almost $3 million. That total grows to over $4.7 million when adding in 202 additional gifts accepted by the eight justices who have left the court since 2004. "

https://www.courthousenews.com/justices-gifts-add-up-new-report-reveals-3-million-in-handouts/

They have all accepted gifts and only 2 out of 17 have disclosed them all.

 

[Gromdor]

5 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Apparently you didn't bother to read the link, I guess doing so would of hurt your argument.

"From January 2004 to December 2023, the nine justices accepted 344 gifts valued at almost $3 million. That total grows to over $4.7 million when adding in 202 additional gifts accepted by the eight justices who have left the court since 2004. "

https://www.courthousenews.com/justices-gifts-add-up-new-report-reveals-3-million-in-handouts/

They have all accepted gifts and only 2 out of 17 have disclosed them all.

 

Eh, my argument is that they shouldn't be getting gifts, if they do they should be reporting them, and if they don't then they should be impeached.  So in this case, impeach them all.

Is your argument the same or is it, "We should look the other way because "X" got away with it"?

[DarkHunter]

5 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Eh, my argument is that they shouldn't be getting gifts, if they do they should be reporting them, and if they don't then they should be impeached.  So in this case, impeach them all.

Is your argument the same or is it, "We should look the other way because "X" got away with it"?

That is not the argument you were making and you know it.

You did say

1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

You are assuming the others got gifts.  If they got nothing, then of course they would report that they got no gifts.

Which is implying that some Supreme Court Justices are not receiving gifts.  You are very clearly trying to justify targeting two conservative Justices but giving others a pass.  You may be occasionally saying none of them should be receiving gifts but you are clearly only interested in going after two which just happen to be conservative.

[Gromdor]

4 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

That is not the argument you were making and you know it.

You did say

Which is implying that some Supreme Court Justices are not receiving gifts.  You are very clearly trying to justify targeting two conservative Justices but giving others a pass.  You may be occasionally saying none of them should be receiving gifts but you are clearly only interested in going after two which just happen to be conservative.

Untrue.  See my post 44.  It's the one I started with.  It's pretty clear what my stance is.

I also notice you are deflecting away from my question-  Do you agree with me or do you think that "Because "X" got away with with we should ignore it again"?

Edited July 12 by Gromdor

[DarkHunter]

1 minute ago, Gromdor said:

Untrue.  See my post 44.  It's the one I started with.  It's pretty clear what my stance is.

I also notice you are deflecting away from my question-  Do you agree with me or do you think that "Because "X" got away with with we should ignore it again"?

Where or when have you called for Sotomayor or Brown to be impeached and removed for their ethical violations, cause it seems you pay lip service to no corruption but only want to enforce it on conservative Justices.

There should be no corruption, in this case accepting gifts, on the Supreme Court but I don't agree with you cause you very clearly only want to selectively enforce it.  The only thing worse then corruption is a system where corruption is went after selectively which seems to be exactly what you want.

[Doc Socks Junior]

23 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

So you are suggesting that ethics violations and corruption begins at a specific value amount, what specific value amount is it ok for a Supreme Court Justice to not disclose gifts.

15$. Regardless, they should disclose all their gifts.

23 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Of course the most pretentious troller here would quickly move to insults but expecting maturity from you is probably a bit much.

Pretentious. Now there's a 5-buck word. 

I'll ask again, noting you've now ignored the question once: Do you not see the difference between a Supreme Court Justice receiving five thousand dollars in gifts versus five million dollars in gifts?

[DarkHunter]

Just now, Doc Socks Junior said:

15$. Regardless, they should disclose all their gifts.

Good to know corruption isn't a matter of principal but amount for you.

Just now, Doc Socks Junior said:

Pretentious. Now there's a 5-buck word. 

I'll ask again, noting you've now ignored the question once: Do you not see the difference between a Supreme Court Justice receiving five thousand dollars in gifts versus five million dollars in gifts?

You can't seem to understand that corruption is corruption regardless of amount but I suspect you do understand that and just want to troll

[Gromdor]

1 minute ago, DarkHunter said:

Where or when have you called for Sotomayor or Brown to be impeached and removed for their ethical violations, cause it seems you pay lip service to no corruption but only want to enforce it on conservative Justices.

There should be no corruption, in this case accepting gifts, on the Supreme Court but I don't agree with you cause you very clearly only want to selectively enforce it.  The only thing worse then corruption is a system where corruption is went after selectively which seems to be exactly what you want.

Huh, maybe we are speaking different languages here.  Pretty sure I said impeach them all.

 

17 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Eh, my argument is that they shouldn't be getting gifts, if they do they should be reporting them, and if they don't then they should be impeached.  So in this case, impeach them all.

Is your argument the same or is it, "We should look the other way because "X" got away with it"?

Does anyone else have any confusion about my post I quoted above?  

[Doc Socks Junior]

Just now, DarkHunter said:

Good to know corruption isn't a matter of principal but amount for you.

Not what I said.

Just basic common sense. I don't think Clarence Thomas should report that a buddy bought him a beer in a bar. Hence the $15 dollar reporting limit. I do think he should report his millions of dollars of gifts.

Regardless, I clearly stated that all gifts should be reported.

Just now, DarkHunter said:

You can't seem to understand that corruption is corruption regardless of amount but I suspect you do understand that and just want to troll

You still haven't answered the question. Third time is the charm.

Do you not see the difference between a Supreme Court Justice receiving five thousand dollars in gifts versus five million dollars in gifts?

[DarkHunter]

3 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Huh, maybe we are speaking different languages here.  Pretty sure I said impeach them all.

 

Does anyone else have any confusion about my post I quoted above?  

Like I said you pay lip service to the idea of impeaching them all but only seem to care about going after conservative Justices

[Gromdor]

Just now, DarkHunter said:

Like I said you pay lip service to the idea of impeaching them all but only seem to care about going after conservative Justices

You have to start somewhere.  

I take it that you are taking the stance of "Because "X" got away with it, my guys should too"?

[Doc Socks Junior]

3 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Huh, maybe we are speaking different languages here.  Pretty sure I said impeach them all.

Math and languages are hard.

3 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Does anyone else have any confusion about my post I quoted above?  

Seems pretty clear.

Well, the word "all" as applied to a set of Supreme Court justices would certainly include the justices mentioned in post #56.

It seems the confusion on powers of 10 applies to basic mathematical sets as well.

I wonder what grade level the remedial mathematical education needs to reach back to.

[DarkHunter]

2 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Not what I said.

Just basic common sense. I don't think Clarence Thomas should report that a buddy bought him a beer in a bar. Hence the $15 dollar reporting limit. I do think he should report his millions of dollars of gifts.

Regardless, I clearly stated that all gifts should be reported.

It is exactly what you said, you put a dollar limit on where corruption starts so to you it is a quantifiable amount and not something that is wrong based on its inherent nature.

3 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

You still haven't answered the question. Third time is the charm.

Do you not see the difference between a Supreme Court Justice receiving five thousand dollars in gifts versus five million dollars in gifts?

I did answer the question but you can't seem to understand it, which isn't surprising given your traditional issues with understanding abstract and complex ideas.

The issue with your question is you assume everyone values everything at the same monetary amount, which isn't true.  For example Person A buys a candy bar for $2 cause they think it is worth that much and Person B doesn't buy it cause they the same candy bar is only worth $1.  Applying this idea to your stance on corruption, Justice A may value something that cost $5,000 very heavily to the point he will change a ruling based on if he gets it or not while Justice B may put very little to no value on a $5 million gift and not change his ruling.  Corruption depends on how much each Justice values the gift which is why there is no difference between a $5,000 gift and a $5 million dollar gift as either has the potential to sway a Justice.

But like I said you do seem to have issues understanding complex and abstract concepts.

6 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Seems pretty clear.

Well, the word "all" as applied to a set of Supreme Court justices would certainly include the justices mentioned in post #56.

It seems the confusion on powers of 10 applies to basic mathematical sets as well.

I wonder what grade level the remedial mathematical education needs to reach back to.

Personal attacks and insults, not even brave enough to direct them at me.  You are truly a sad and pathetic coward 

[DarkHunter]

8 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

You have to start somewhere.  

I take it that you are taking the stance of "Because "X" got away with it, my guys should too"?

I'm taking the stance there should be no corruption but the only system worse then a corrupt system is a system with selectively enforced laws and rules.

Just convenient you go after two conservative Justices first

[Doc Socks Junior]

5 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

It is exactly what you said, you put a dollar limit on where corruption starts so to you it is a quantifiable amount and not something that is wrong based on its inherent nature.

I put a dollar limit on where reporting should start, for the purposes of practicality. I also said that all gifts should be reported anyway.

If you want to twist that, it's your prerogative.

5 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

I did answer the question but you can't seem to understand it, which isn't surprising given your traditional issues with understanding abstract and complex ideas.

Passing over the insults...

5 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

The issue with your question is you assume everyone values everything at the same monetary amount, which isn't true.  For example Person A buys a candy bar for $2 cause they think it is worth that much and Person B doesn't buy it cause they the same candy bar is only worth $1.  Applying this idea to your stance on corruption, Justice A may value something that cost $5,000 very heavily to the point he will change a ruling based on if he gets it or not while Justice B may put very little to no value on a $5 million gift and not change his ruling.  Corruption depends on how much each Justice values the gift which is why there is no difference between a $5,000 gift and a $5 million dollar gift as either has the potential to sway a Justice.

Nice, there we go. Thanks for being clear that you're arguing to the point of absurdity.

There's obviously a large numerical difference between the examples of gift sizes, and an example of a 1$ vs a 2$ candy bar doesn't change that. The difference is a thousand times.

For instance, if someone punched someone a single time, we could call that assault. If someone punches someone 1000x, and reduced their head to a pulp of meat, we could call that murder. Your stance is equivalent to saying that both are examples of violence (which they are), and should be treated in the same way. The legal system has limits and degrees, which avoids the absurd argumentation you're trying to make in order to defend the cartoonish-ly out of proportion corruption of Thomas. There are degrees of violence, and there are degrees of theft, and there are degrees of corruption. While we should obviously go after every single instance of these problems in a perfect world, we don't live in a perfect world.

We can work our way from the $5 million corruption to the $5 thousand corruption. Get rid of them all, sure.

Now, just to keep clarifying, is there similarly no difference between a $5 dollar gift and a $5 million dollar gift, as either has the potential to sway a justice? What's the limits to your absurdity?

5 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

But like I said you do seem to have issues understanding complex and abstract concepts.

Personal attacks and insults, not even brave enough to direct them at me.  You are truly a sad and pathetic coward 

I'll pass over these insults, too.

[Saru]

Enough with the insults please.

[Grim Reaper 6]

21 hours ago, Michelle said:

Racists...they've been trying to get rid of him for years.

Edited July 12 by Grim Reaper 6

[Tatetopa]

2 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

The issue with your question is you assume everyone values everything at the same monetary amount, which isn't true.  For example Person A buys a candy bar for $2 cause they think it is worth that much and Person B doesn't buy it cause they the same candy bar is only worth $1.  Applying this idea to your stance on corruption, Justice A may value something that cost $5,000 very heavily to the point he will change a ruling based on if he gets it or not while Justice B may put very little to no value on a $5 million gift and not change his ruling.  Corruption depends on how much each Justice values the gift which is why there is no difference between a $5,000 gift and a $5 million dollar gift as either has the potential to sway a Justice.

Buddy, that seems like a stretch.  A  $5 million dollar or even a $5,000 gift is too much.  You cannot personalize amounts like that because we can't assume to read other's minds enough to judge that.  That's kind or the underlying reason we have public standards.  I worked for a very large corporation for a number of years.  We had gift standards, it started with our purchasing department and spread to all salaried staff.   An employee did not accept anything with the value of a bottle of liquor or more.  A customer or vendor could take you to lunch, but imagine a Purchasing Agent receiving a $500,000 RV from a vendor  and claiming it was of little value to him and would not affect his purchasing decisions.

There is not reason any public official should be receiving gifts from supplicants.  That is a basic fact that all corporations deal with, it is not out of the  question  for people in positions of power.

[DarkHunter]

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Buddy, that seems like a stretch.  A  $5 million dollar or even a $5,000 gift is too much.  You cannot personalize amounts like that because we can't assume to read other's minds enough to judge that.  That's kind or the underlying reason we have public standards.  I worked for a very large corporation for a number of years.  We had gift standards, it started with our purchasing department and spread to all salaried staff.   An employee did not accept anything with the value of a bottle of liquor or more.  A customer or vendor could take you to lunch, but imagine a Purchasing Agent receiving a $500,000 RV from a vendor  and claiming it was of little value to him and would not affect his purchasing decisions.

There is not reason any public official should be receiving gifts from supplicants.  That is a basic fact that all corporations deal with, it is not out of the  question  for people in positions of power.

Yet it's the left who goes only after conservative Justices even though out of 17 Supreme Court Justices between like 2004 and 2024 who have received a combine total gift value of over $4 million only 2 have fully reported everything.  

All of this is just very clearly an attempt to remove conservative Justices to give Biden a chance to appoint liberal Justices since none of the liberal Justices who have done the exact same thing as the conservative Justices are being impeached.

[Gromdor]

8 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Yet it's the left who goes only after conservative Justices even though out of 17 Supreme Court Justices between like 2004 and 2024 who have received a combine total gift value of over $4 million only 2 have fully reported everything.  

All of this is just very clearly an attempt to remove conservative Justices to give Biden a chance to appoint liberal Justices since none of the liberal Justices who have done the exact same thing as the conservative Justices are being impeached.

Does that $4 million include the $2.4 million Clarence Thomas got?  It does raise an eyebrow when one guy gets almost as much (or more if he is included) as all the others over the last 20 years put together.

[Hankenhunter]

On 7/11/2024 at 3:30 PM, Grim Reaper 6 said:

I certainly agree and there is proof across this thread that when everyone is in agreement no body is independently thinking. It’s hilarious that the first thing out of their mouths is that it’s a RACIST plot to single him out, those individuals need to start thinking for themselves and stop drinking that dam Trump Kool-Aid!🤣

Especially since most of them are closet racists. The hypocrisy is sickening.

[Grim Reaper 6]

8 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Especially since most of them are closet racists. The hypocrisy is sickening.

It’s very sickening, however they most likely don’t even realize it, to them it’s just a normal part of a casual conversation!

Edited July 13 by Grim Reaper 6

[Hankenhunter]

3 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

It’s very sickening, however they most likely don’t even realize it, to them it’s just a normal part of a casual conversation!

What's amazing is they don't have enough cognitive reasoning to see that they'll be tossed under the bus with everyone else

[Grim Reaper 6]

2 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

What's amazing is they don't have enough cognitive reasoning to see that they'll be tossed under the bus with everyone else

I agree that is very obvious!