Testing.

RGB should have retied 2009-2012. 100% no doubt about it. The consequences of her decision not to are simply staggering.

Important to remember that the vast majority of the country - which includes MANY republicans - do not want it overturned.

This is what the Republican Party thinks of women.

Testing.

He seems to have reasonable viewpoint of knowing it needs to be more moderated than 4chan style if he doesn't want to lose his money, but less ideologically driven than now

Technically I’d have to consider the “left” to be far right, but I don’t care about politics, rather things I can prove. Their political differences are insignificant as far as I’m concerned. That’s how far in the past they are.

So you're about that Karl Marx life now or what?

No, technically I’d consider him far right too. But again I don’t care about politics.

I mean communism centralizes power, even leftist say that’s a right wing divergence. People on the internet who call themselves “moderates”, but whom others call “right wing” say that authoritarianism is a leftist trait. But again, I don’t really care about politics or your political spectrum.

Why would I want to follow an anti-left Marxist? I said Marxism is part of the problem. I mean, I’ll check the link, but I expect the worst.

No, I don’t believe in politics. It’s just a game as far as I’m concerned. I treat it like a science I suppose. Without making it too complicated, we can say I’d replace politics with science, and other objective disciplines, but again, they way you will interpret that statement is far too simplistic and would be misleading. If you make history, economics, and other similar areas more scientific and objective, it’s just a gradual process, but again, that’s misleading. Within a complicated and advanced civilization (yours is definitively not; it’s extremely primitive), creativity becomes ever more essential, including within logic and science.

I think Marx had some holes in his predictions, but the main reason for communist dictators in the 1900s is probably that authoritarian minded people just needed to tell the lower classes something to get them to buy into their snake oil, rather than them really believing in any of it. I mean when Mao has 50 mansions and is eating gourmet food flown in that day while people are starving, I don't think he really believes in "classless society", quite the opposite, he believes in class division more with him deserving to be King and the worthless peasants to serve him. The end result of successful communist revolutions is typically more feudal societies than they had before, the complete opposite of what the goal was supposed to be, because it was always just BS and a means to an end to get gullible people to give them authoritarian power. Meanwhile some people will claim that this means that communism hasn't really been tried, but the way I view it is that if it's ended all these types with feudal lord type assholes in charge, maybe it's best to just stop going to that well and admit that utopia isn't possible, if you have positions of total power open someone bad is going to inevitably fill it, the good people don't have the same desire for power.

The problem is how do you decide who the objective scientists are? People disagree on whether Dr Fauci is objective for example, same for scientists who work in politically charged fields like climate change, abortion or trans bodies.

The world would be better if everyone in charge was rational, but rationality has never been as popular as appealing to emotions, and eventually someone always realizes that dividing people against each other is the best political strategy in history.

Reality, math and logic etc. define science.

If they're actually engaging in real science

A fundamentalist scientist who's trying to prove evolution isn't real, is not really engaging in science for example, he's engaging in activism for his religion. As a result his method is to starts with the conclusion that evolution isn't real, and then cherry picks all the evidence to support it, and intentionally ignores the evidence in favor of evolution. This method is the opposite of science that starts with evidence and then draws conclusions from it, or lets their original hypothesis be challenged by new evidence.

I have no reason to take seriously scientists who use this circular logic seriously, no matter how many PHDs they have. In an ideal world peer review would be able to spot obviously biased science... unless the peer reviewers share the same religious or quasi-religious views as him. At that point they're more likely to reject him for not being subjective enough towards their beliefs.

When it comes to how why the right doesn't "trust the science" on things like covid and climate change, this is how they're viewing those scientists. They view left wing ideologues as having taken over the science field in order to be soldiers for their ideology, and once the top universities purged non-left wing thinking from peer review, it became nearly impossible for a conservative to reach the type of credentials that the people like Fauci propped out by the government and media do. The idea that you're not allowed to question the science on things like covid, goes against what science is supposed to be, which is something to be challenged and tested.