Your point was no-one would talk about it if the situations were reversed, but PLENTY of people talked about it when the situations were reversed.
It's not even a hypothetical, it's something that literally happened.

It's hard to believe your "I'm not partisan" spiel when your main argument is "if the situation was reversed noone would care", but the situation WAS reversed 4 years ago, it WAS on the news BECAUSE republicans refused to follow precedent and proceed to a vote, and now refuse to follow the 'new' precedent they themselves established and THAT is the reason why it's now such a big deal.
So you call it how you see it, through R(ose) tinted glasses.
And if you think a Justice replacement that could literally change the conservation/progressive balance of the SCOTUS, during a time where the US is as divided as it is now would ever NOT make the news, you are quite out of touch with reality.

Yes, I'm well aware republicans are changing their tunes. And not confirming a Justice is not the same as not holding a vote to confirm (or not) that Justice.

[part 2]
So now, when Democrats argue that RBG should not be replaced until after the election, they aren't "flip flopping" or "being hypocrites", they are arguing for Republicans to be held to the same standard they were so happy to set back when it benefitted them.
And btw, you have republicans on record back in 2016 saying "if the situation were reversed and it was a Republican president I would absolutely support waiting for the election". But of course, a Republican's word carries very little value.
.
.
You can't play Uno, and when I play 'draw 2' against you say "house rules : I can counter a +2 with my own +2, which carries the total of +4 to the next player", then when 3 turns later you play +2 against me, be upset that I want to counter it with my own +2 because "you disagreed with the house rule when I explained it, you're being a hypocrite".
Whether I complained or not, if you enforced it as a valid rule back then, it's now a rule.
And that is what PRECEDENT is.

I love this argument because if you reach the conclusion 'both sides are hypocrites' it really showcases how little you've pushed the reflection. Have you asked yourself WHY were all the Democratic voices arguing that a Justice SHOULD be installed back then ?
Well because back then the precedent WAS to have a vote in this scenario. So democrats were arguing for consistency with the established precedent.
Republicans didn't want to follow precedent (presumably because it benefited Democrats), so they came up with the excuse that you shouldn't do that in an election year. Democrats said it was bullshit, but Republicans, once again ignoring existing rules and precedent, set up this new precedent that a Justice shouldn't be appointed in an election year.
[part1]

Well I mean any amount of consistency on behalf of republicans would be the reason.
When Obama had an open seat and wanted to appoint someone TEN months before the election, Republicans argued that doing so SO CLOSE to the election was unfair and the people deserved the right to chose. For that reason the Senate refused to HOLD A VOTE on it (please note that that is NOT the same thing as holding a vote and refusing to confirm the appointment, which would've fallen well within the Senate's authority).
By refusing to HOLD A VOTE (presumably to not have to go on record voting against a moderate and highly qualified judge) they established the precedent that a SCOTUS seat shouldn't be filled during the last year of the presidency, as that strips the people from the possibility to chose.
And now, TWO months before the election, republicans are out here pretending none of that ever happened, and once again proving that they live by the moto 'rules for thee, but not for me.'.

Who are you who are so wise in the ways of scaring kids ?

F

Does it tho ? It didn't for Breonna, if we don't push for something better it won't for many others.

Countries around the world took this thing seriously, wore the mask because health professionals said it was the right thing to do (and made it mandatory, because it is a public health concern). People didn't try to make this a "im being oppressed ! HELP !" thing, because they understand it's not only about themselves. And now those countries are going back to normal and have the epidemic under control.
Meanwhile the US is hitting new highs everyday, and are considering re-opening schools despite every health professional pointing out there is NO WAY to do so in a safe manner. But yeah, masks aren't effective, they just happened to work everywhere they were used.

Yeah, cops really should follow your advice. Unfortunately there's plenty of videos of cops pulling their guns out in a situation that doesn't warrant it (remember that video of the guy pickup up trash in front of his dorm that got the cops called on him ? yeah.).
And by the way, that's part of the problem the protests against police brutality are against you know. But it's funny how cops shooting people are 'justified' until you disagree with the 'reason' they shot (and btw, I'll add that before you misinterpret my words : I don't think shooting someone because they're not wearing a mask is justified). So no, not everyone who believes masks should be mandatory because it's a matter of public health believes you should be shot if you don't.

It's still a lot better than nothing. You're no trying to stop microscopic particles, youre trying to stop droplets and stuff like that. Imagine sneezing with this versus sneezing with nothing on. Sure some will still get through, but a LOT will be contained.

Not gonna lie, you calling me irrational is the best proof of my rationality I could ever ask for. But I'm sure you're right, and the protest rocking the country right now are just do nothing lazy people who should keep quiet and obey LEO. Keep at it buddy, common sense is expensive.

Ah yes. The police killings that were deemed justified by the police. You shouldn't treat kids going through basic training like shit either btw. That's not an argument to allow the treatment of civilians, that's you making my point, and as always, still missing the point by half a mile, but I'll add that at least they are here of their own free will.
If you don't think the police are abusing their power in the US, and racially targeting black people despite the overwhelming statistics showing that, idk, I guess I'm not surprised. And the issue isn't that no killing is ever justified, is that even when it's fucking not justified, the officer will get a nice paid vacation, shuffled around to another station and go on abusing his power again with no accountability.
Fuck outta here with your 'police is justified in the killings'. They aren't protecting innocent lives, people in other countries aren't magically less in danger, and somehow LEO don't kill people there.

Yes you're wrong but that's not surprising.
That the police be held to stricter rules than the military is COMMON SENSE, one is dealing with war and enemies, the other is supposed to be dealing with fucking civilians.
So if the police is doing stuff to your own fucking citizens that the military would literally not be allowed to do with people you're at war with, and your argument is "our citizens do not get the same protections as people we're at war with get.", then maybe you should question whether it's ok for the police to do that ?
No one said the police should be able to behave as military. They said they shouldn't be allowed use tactics that even the military aren't allowed to use. You can't just 'flip it around' because it's not symmetrical. The police are EXPECTED to have stricter limitations on account of you're not supposed to be at war with your own citizens.

Ah, from one tv start to another, because who needs a competent leader when you can have a "famousone" (pun intended) instead ?

Oh no, you have me scared.
If seat belts work, why do we need airbags ? If airbags work why do we need the seat belts ? And if both work, why on earth do we need brakes ? Because it turns out, none are 100% effective, but they add up and compliment each other nicely.
The reason it's ok to enforce the use of masks is BECAUSE THE DECISION NOT TO WEAR ONE ENDANGERS OTHERS AND NOT ONLY YOU. So it's no longer your decision alone to make.
It's the same reason smoking in restaurants is banned. BECAUSE IT AFFECTS OTHERS.
Jesus you say we don't address your point, but the point was made 23 messages ago and you ignore it : Your personal liberties stop when they cause harm to others.
And of course you're now defending anti-vaxxers.

Yes because it works the same way :
You smoking in a restaurant next to me causes harm to me, therefore, it's banned.
You refusing to vaccinate your kids because facebook told you it's bad puts others in harms way, therefore your kid is banned from public schools (unless a doctor, with an actual medical license, who went to med school says your kid has a medical reason not to be vaccinated. Which btw is the reason why others who CAN do it NEED to do it, because it protects those who can't).
It's really not hard : are you placing your personal convenience over other's safety to prove a point ? If the answer is yes, you're not a "martyr fighting against oppression", that's what people in HK are doing, you're a c*nt.
Ain't it the right who has a ginormous moron who likes to say 'facts don't care about your feelings' ? Well facts say wearing a mask protects others and helps slow down the spread. Your feelings on the matter don't matter.

TL,DR: shut the fuck up and wear your mask. It protects others. If it was about protecting yourself nobody would give two shits because if you want to put yourself in harms way just to prove a point, by all means, be my guest. Your personal liberties stop when they start putting others in harms way.

Also, the business owner who decides to open up without a mask puts HIS WORKER S at risk, not himself. So he's gonna make that call for business reasons, disregarding human reasons. And then the employees don't have a choice, because they lose the possibility to claim unemployment since their businees has re-opened even tho it has re-opened in a way that puts them in harms way.
So no, it's not half as simple as "let the morons harm themselves in their own bubble and pick up the survivors in 6 months", their "choice" to ignore facts and science for their convenience affects others directly, which is why it goes beyond their personal freedom.
The other side is manifesting against police brutality and racism, so it's not exactly the same.

@xvarnah /r/AskReddit/comments/5ipinn/you_and_a_super_intelligent_snail_both_get_1/
The thread is worth a read if you have some time to waste.

Hey, at least I'm white (this feels very wrong to say), and I'm getting older by the minute. And thanks for that mental image ><