I'm not going to go into my personal life but I just crossed paths of someone of the political persuasion. Spends all their time snivelling to the UN etc.
It went down like this. They tried to prod me out of the blue riling me up as I passed by saying the Texas case was rejected.
I had to explain the evidence was not dismissed. I also explained why people have no trust in the judiciary anymore albeit briefly. He said SCOTUS surely knows more than me on constitutional and interstate law to which I absolutely agree but I also pointed out the error in his assumption and prejudicial assumption that they might operate in accordance to knowledge which of course his own failure in judgement precludes him from judging let alone judging judgement.
The hilarious part was this. Learn how to get people to make your own argument just asking questions and see where it leads. I told him it's possible to resubmit and perhaps it was rushed though I have seen the SCOTUS statement and I'm concerned.
I told him it said that Texas doesn't have the right to object to how another state runs their elections. I point out this was not their election in the same fashio as for example voting their own governor. So then the questions. I asked him but what type of election is this. What are they voting for? He tried to be very technical to stave the inevitable dragging it out step by step but it was impossible. The moment you start asking questions is the moment it all starts to fall apart. He said for their electors. Then I said to elect what. He said the POTUS. Then I said and what is the US. He answered. I forced him himself to state what interest Texas might have.
Then I said ah ha. Then he said despite initiating it that he doesn't want to talk about it any more to which I said ha ha ha alright and left him to it. He started it, I finished it. Let that be a lesson to us all.
Make them take their ball and go home.
Huh, you got an NPC to think. Not an easy task these day, well done.
The SCOTUS undoubtedly know more about the law than any of us but knowing then law doesn't mean you'll judge fairly in relation to the law.
Standing is a rather new concept in law. In the USA it is attributed to beginning in the 1920s. There's nothing necessarily right about the concept of standing. When standing is used to avoid a lawsuit, on nothing but a technicality, that 15+ States believe in, one should seriously question its use and the merits of it.
Learn the power of asking questions and line of thinking. Be a true leader and they will follow your thinking.
I also convinced people of something that left them in a stupor.
The Oxford vaccine is a recombined zoonotic virus made in the lab.
SARS-COV-2 is a recombined zoonotic virus.
Indeed I am cursed with thinking but more so that it is so difficult to share. I'm so alone with my thoughts as it is without the crushing weight of the powers that be.
It's a real burden. Us thinkers who do so naturally also have to try to teach others to think who have been taught to do anything but.
When dealing with the NPC and brainwashed who have been told what to think or not to think but not how this is the way to deprogram them. They think they have all the answers already so put them to task. Ask.