The constitution says they serve “in good behavior”, so that could be seen as a restriction on setting term limits. The only way to remove one is impeachment.

Who would challenge it?

My question is, who brings suit? You can’t bring suit if you’re not an injured party. The justices can’t bring suit without recusing themselves. This is quite the conundrum.

It would take a constitutional amendment, something that isn’t going to happen.

Justices can just rule it unconstitutional.

Doing nothing productive with your life, everything revolves around social drama, getting permission to take a shit…

I enjoyed my time at school. But you’ve got to ask yourself, if the best time of your life was at school that means you’ve made bad decisions, so what did it prepare you for really? School failed you.

The truth is that school fails all of us.

That’s not true either, almost every racist I run into on the internet talks mad shit about republicans for supporting Israel. Most of them wouldn’t vote for either party. I saw multiple news articles about klansmen in 2016 supporting Hillary Clinton on the grounds that she was anti desegregation when she worked on the Goldwater campaign in the 60s.

I’ve met numerous liberals and leftists that were racist in private. Hell, Che Guevara was an outspoken racist. I don’t think racism is partisan, there are just people like that out there.

The algorithms killed the platforms. They’ve become vapid, empty holes that only attract people addicted to them like junkies.

The internet can be fun, but you’re not going to find it on the platforms. You’re only going to find fun in places where people talk to each other. And even then, if you’re thin skinned you’re going to wind up in an outrage filled circlejerk. If you loosen up and go where the algorithms don’t exist you can have a good time.

This is so wrong it’s absurd, it gives you absolutely no information on the history of this conflict. The current conflict dates back to the early 20th century, well before world war 2.

It’s called Pleroma.

No matter what you think of it, someone’s going to try to guilt and browbeat you. Support the Palestinians? You’re antisemitic and support terrorism. Support Israel? You’re supporting an oppressive apartheid state. So who cares whether you’re allowed, this is the world we live in, no matter what you think about anything there’s someone out there who’s going to call you a bad person for it. Just learn about things before you form an opinion, use your judgment and critical thinking and then figure out the truth of whatever it is.

Personally, I don’t support either side. I can see how they both kind of brought each other’s retaliation on themselves. I just lament innocent people dying and dislike how it affects me.

Misuse lol. People need to get their panties out of their butthole. You build a photo generator and get mad when someone uses it to make a picture of Marx with tits. Who cares? Crybabies can cry about it.

It’s never going to happen.

Can you see the tip of your nose?

We aren’t making fun of the situation, we are making fun of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

People died then. It was a war then. When can we start making jokes about the world we live in? My sense of humor would horrify you.

Get a sense of humor you brick.

Yes, and that’s OK.

They want to make everything impossible to fix. They want to turn our land into landfills and fleece us of our income.

Climate change or no, electric fan or no, anyone with self respect would rather buy a 1990 beater than a new car, they’re user and owner hostile.

You’re going to need a source on the claim that most violent crime is in the furtherance of other profitable crime? You ever heard a phrase such as “if weed were legal then people wouldn’t kill each other selling weed”? I thought this was settled science. Is it so outlandish an idea that most people who kill do it because it is profitable for them to do so that you want me to google it for you?

Alright, so let me ask you, what does “common sense” gun control look like?

I never unreasonably assumed he meant personal ownership. I just thought you know, since you can read a dead mans mind and know he was talking about the French revolution or something you must really, really know what you’re talking about.

“Let them take arms” can be reasonably construed to mean “let them own guns”. Saying “in no way” is categorically incorrect. Saying it might not mean that is not unreasonable, but saying it definitely doesn’t is absolutely unreasonable, which is what you’re saying.

What he meant, what was going on in his head, we can’t know. Well, except for you apparently, because you really know what you’re talking about. But the rest of us, all we can do is take his words at face value.