Political Roundtable Part XXII

[JWizmentality]

Yeah, arguably the least credible, most biased reporter in the world, Rachel maddow

Why are you even here? Shouldn't you be staking out a comet pizza? Or hunting down gay frogs? Or why Sidney Blumenthal was in Benghazi? Or how Seth Rich was a secret Russian spy? I know right wing media keeps you guys busy.

yea but blatantly left media is gold right? All those ridiculous things u just listed pale in comparison to the Dems trumped up (no pun intended) BS against Kavanaugh the last few weeks.

Pedophile ring run out of a pizza shop vs credible assault allegations...hmmm you're sense of the absurd is way off my dude.

[UcanUwill]

You have your opinion on when life begins, I have mine, I find the fetus isnt life talk as ridiculous myself.

And I never said all abortions, in cases where the mother or child's life is compromised, those are situations no one should ever have to go through, but unfortunately are reality. of course you understand those circumstances, I'm talking about the #1 reason for abortions, the whoops, oops, unplanned. Abortion isn't an after birth control option, it's a selfish, vile act in those situations.

Well, technically life begins after fertilization, so you are technically correct, the best kind of correct. I respect your opinion, granted I am not 100% sure on all abortion to be legal myself, but to compare fetus to grown person, and to say that pro abortion people are basically are pro murder is asinine in my opinion. I think there is more to being alive than just DNA cells multiplying,

[daoneandonly]

Why are you even here? Shouldn't you be staking out a comet pizza? Or hunting down gay frogs? Or why Sidney Blumenthal was in Benghazi? Or how Seth Rich was a secret Russian spy? I know right wing media keeps you guys busy.

yea but blatantly left media is gold right? All those ridiculous things u just listed pale in comparison to the Dems trumped up (no pun intended) BS against Kavanaugh the last few weeks.

Pedophile ring run out of a pizza shop vs credible assault allegations...hmmm you're sense of the absurd is way off my dude.

If you gents or ladies are going to contribute to a political post, how about refrianing from using dude or brah or whatever the latest equivalent is? You mentioned a varied of things, Russian spy, this and that, not every conservative is a conspiracy hound. And again, you keep saying credible and acting as if these allegations are certain, they're not, not even in the least bit.

[daoneandonly]

They will have the court for some time... but they will lose the POTUS and house over the next couple of years. The will have won a short-term battle to have lost the war.

I'm slightly less optimistic here. They will have won a short term battle to lose a shorter term battle. That SCOTUS could potentially cause loads of legislative problems for the Dems in the coming years, and it isn't like the Dems are some bastion of legislative brilliance. Their biggest positive is that they aren't the Republicans (something most of them outside of Obama seem happy to campaign on). When the Dems invariably run into legislative problems, there will be flips back. And the Republicans know it. No matter how awful either side is, there will be a swing back at some point. There is no winning this war, only winning individual battles. So what they're doing here is winning the battles they do win as decisively as possible and leaving the mess for the other side to clean up when they invariably win a battle later on.

So, my point is that there is only 20% of the population that believes that abortion should be banned in all cases. Should the court change Roe vs. Wade, it would be legislated in. It is a long-term death-knell for the party that has that as their platform.

And if the court causes the legislature to legislate and write legislation to overrule the court - terrific.

Those numbers can be skewed though because of California and NY, two notoriously left leaning states. Which is why many argue it should be at the state level, let the states decide accordingly, which Roe v Wade doesn't.

[JWizmentality]

yea but blatantly left media is gold right? All those ridiculous things u just listed pale in comparison to the Dems trumped up (no pun intended) BS against Kavanaugh the last few weeks.

Pedophile ring run out of a pizza shop vs credible assault allegations...hmmm you're sense of the absurd is way off my dude.

If you gents or ladies are going to contribute to a political post, how about refrianing from using dude or brah or whatever the latest equivalent is? You mentioned a varied of things, Russian spy, this and that, not every conservative is a conspiracy hound. And again, you keep saying credible and acting as if these allegations are certain, they're not, not even in the least bit.

No...and if that's the case you'll be disappointed with the conservatives on this board whose posts are a weird mix of pig latin, fake Russian and 14 year old tween....and whatever the hell GhostofChenier is.

[closg00]

Before the 2016 election, servers from Trump Tower were communicating with a server in Russia and it has been covered-up.
Hopefully Dems get back the house blow the lid on the entire thing.

Watch on YouTube

Yeah, arguably the least credible, most biased reporter in the world, Rachel maddow

The opposite is true, she is opinionated, but her commentary is based on facts and evidence, unlike conservative talking heads.
In any case, you can't dispute the facts of the reports she is referring-to so Good Day.

[verbal8]

Melania might be almost as bad as Donald(or JR)
https://www.yahoo.com/news/melania-trump-women-accusing-men-show-evidence-124827456--politics.html

[nate33]

They will have the court for some time... but they will lose the POTUS and house over the next couple of years. The will have won a short-term battle to have lost the war.

I'm slightly less optimistic here. They will have won a short term battle to lose a shorter term battle. That SCOTUS could potentially cause loads of legislative problems for the Dems in the coming years, and it isn't like the Dems are some bastion of legislative brilliance. Their biggest positive is that they aren't the Republicans (something most of them outside of Obama seem happy to campaign on). When the Dems invariably run into legislative problems, there will be flips back. And the Republicans know it. No matter how awful either side is, there will be a swing back at some point. There is no winning this war, only winning individual battles. So what they're doing here is winning the battles they do win as decisively as possible and leaving the mess for the other side to clean up when they invariably win a battle later on.

So, my point is that there is only 20% of the population that believes that abortion should be banned in all cases. Should the court change Roe vs. Wade, it would be legislated in. It is a long-term death-knell for the party that has that as their platform.

And if the court causes the legislature to legislate and write legislation to overrule the court - terrific.

No. If Roe vs. Wade is rescinded, the issue will devolve to the states where it belongs. In most states, there is enough public will to keep abortion legal that it will remain legal. In a handful of conservative states, it will be made illegal because that's what the majority in most of those states want. And I seriously doubt any state would make abortion illegal in cases of rape.

By rescinding Roe vs Wade, even more people will be able to live in a region where abortion laws coincide with their personal beliefs.

[queridiculo]

No. If Roe vs. Wade is rescinded, the issue will devolve to the states where it belongs. In most states, there is enough public will to keep abortion legal that it will remain legal. In a handful of conservative states, it will be made illegal because that's what the majority in most of those states want. And I seriously doubt any state would make abortion illegal in cases of rape.

By rescinding Roe vs Wade, even more people will be able to live in a region where abortion laws coincide with their personal beliefs.

That's got to be one of the most hilarious takes on Roe vs. Wade I've read in some time. Be honest, did you chuckle when you wrote this, since when is it the laws function to build safe spaces for the delusions of people?

Republicans have made it abundantly clear, they do not want women to abort under any circumstance.

We know this because their proposals are neither science nor fact based.

We know this because countless republicans have said so.

We know this because the states like Iowa have already proposed laws that give women that have been raped a mere 45 days to report the crime in order to receive a permit for an abortion.

[payitforward]

But, nate, what makes abortion law more appropriate at the state level than the federal level? That's where most "rights" issues are situated.

More to the point as a question to ask conservatives:

what gives any government at any level a right to legislate on this issue? Abortion has existed since forever, & until the modern era it had been entirely in the hands of women -- for millennia.

A standard conservative position would be to question the power of government to control behavior on this issue. The state took no role in this until quite recently.

By and large, opposition to abortion has emerged out of a set of religious beliefs -- not a political point of view.

[payitforward]

...By rescinding Roe vs Wade, even more people will be able to live in a region where abortion laws coincide with their personal beliefs.

Why is it desirable that the law coincide with any particular set of people's "personal beliefs?"

I can't think of a single thread in legal philosophy that asserts something of that kind (though, in fairness, it's not an area where I'd say I'm exceptionally well-read).

[I_Like_Dirt]

So, my point is that there is only 20% of the population that believes that abortion should be banned in all cases. Should the court change Roe vs. Wade, it would be legislated in. It is a long-term death-knell for the party that has that as their platform.

And if the court causes the legislature to legislate and write legislation to overrule the court - terrific.

I hope you're right. Still not convinced. Just because only 20% of the population believes that abortion should be banned in all cases doesn't mean that everyone else is going to vote against that position all the time.

As for the court causing the legislature to legislate, I'd be ecstatic. I'd be even more ecstatic if the legislation was good legislation that stuck, rather than bad legislation that stuck, or any kind of legislation that just got flipped back and forth as the parties flipped back and forth in the house/senate/presidency. I really do hope the Ds are ready for this, but they're going to have to be at the top of their game.

[dckingsfan]

So, my point is that there is only 20% of the population that believes that abortion should be banned in all cases. Should the court change Roe vs. Wade, it would be legislated in. It is a long-term death-knell for the party that has that as their platform.

And if the court causes the legislature to legislate and write legislation to overrule the court - terrific.

I hope you're right. Still not convinced. Just because only 20% of the population believes that abortion should be banned in all cases doesn't mean that everyone else is going to vote against that position all the time.

As for the court causing the legislature to legislate, I'd be ecstatic. I'd be even more ecstatic if the legislation was good legislation that stuck, rather than bad legislation that stuck, or any kind of legislation that just got flipped back and forth as the parties flipped back and forth in the house/senate/presidency. I really do hope the Ds are ready for this, but they're going to have to be at the top of their game.

Absolutely yes to one of the parties actually legislating. We are watching a true cluster by the Rs in congress... that tax bill isn't sustainable and they haven't helped with the elephant in the room (healthcare).

But the Ds would need to actually legislate. They can't just run on raising taxes and vilifying the top 1% and then having their own favorite tax carveouts. And they can't run on single payer and then not take on the cost drivers for states. Well, they can but it will just be the usual pendulum.

[JWizmentality]

I'm slightly less optimistic here. They will have won a short term battle to lose a shorter term battle. That SCOTUS could potentially cause loads of legislative problems for the Dems in the coming years, and it isn't like the Dems are some bastion of legislative brilliance. Their biggest positive is that they aren't the Republicans (something most of them outside of Obama seem happy to campaign on). When the Dems invariably run into legislative problems, there will be flips back. And the Republicans know it. No matter how awful either side is, there will be a swing back at some point. There is no winning this war, only winning individual battles. So what they're doing here is winning the battles they do win as decisively as possible and leaving the mess for the other side to clean up when they invariably win a battle later on.

So, my point is that there is only 20% of the population that believes that abortion should be banned in all cases. Should the court change Roe vs. Wade, it would be legislated in. It is a long-term death-knell for the party that has that as their platform.

And if the court causes the legislature to legislate and write legislation to overrule the court - terrific.

No. If Roe vs. Wade is rescinded, the issue will devolve to the states where it belongs. In most states, there is enough public will to keep abortion legal that it will remain legal. In a handful of conservative states, it will be made illegal because that's what the majority in most of those states want. And I seriously doubt any state would make abortion illegal in cases of rape.

By rescinding Roe vs Wade, even more people will be able to live in a region where abortion laws coincide with their personal beliefs.

The concept of States rights is so antiquated and foolish in my opinion. Especially when it comes to human rights. If that's the case then the whole idea of the "United States of America" is a myth. You might as well become independent countries. You shouldn't have to travel to another state to have your rights afforded to you, and then have it changed based on which party is in power. I forget which dotard had suggested that slavery should have been left up to the States.

[verbal8]

...By rescinding Roe vs Wade, even more people will be able to live in a region where abortion laws coincide with their personal beliefs.

Why is it desirable that the law coincide with any particular set of people's "personal beliefs?"

I can't think of a single thread in legal philosophy that asserts something of that kind (though, in fairness, it's not an area where I'd say I'm exceptionally well-read).

Agreed. So in areas with strict Muslim or Jewish populations, should pork be outlawed?

[queridiculo]

The concept of States rights is so antiquated and foolish in my opinion. Especially when it comes to human rights. If that's the case then the whole idea of the "United States of America" is a myth. You shouldn't have to travel to another state to have your rights afforded to you, and then have it changed based on which party is in power. I forget which dotard had suggested that slavery should have been left up to the States.

Invoking states rights to defend anti-choice is on some great historical footing.

Constitution worshipping conservatives invoking them to contravene the establishment clause is a mind bending salto mortale that stretches credibility.

[queridiculo]

...By rescinding Roe vs Wade, even more people will be able to live in a region where abortion laws coincide with their personal beliefs.

Why is it desirable that the law coincide with any particular set of people's "personal beliefs?"

I can't think of a single thread in legal philosophy that asserts something of that kind (though, in fairness, it's not an area where I'd say I'm exceptionally well-read).

Agreed. So in areas with strict Muslim or Jewish populations, should pork be outlawed?

No, the idea is to give people the choice to live in pork-free states.

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

Why is it desirable that the law coincide with any particular set of people's "personal beliefs?"

I can't think of a single thread in legal philosophy that asserts something of that kind (though, in fairness, it's not an area where I'd say I'm exceptionally well-read).

Agreed. So in areas with strict Muslim or Jewish populations, should pork be outlawed?

No, the idea is to give people the choice to live in pork-free states.

When I was a teenager, with a lot of acne but a healthy libido, I unfortunately lived in a pork-free state.

[nate33]

No. If Roe vs. Wade is rescinded, the issue will devolve to the states where it belongs. In most states, there is enough public will to keep abortion legal that it will remain legal. In a handful of conservative states, it will be made illegal because that's what the majority in most of those states want. And I seriously doubt any state would make abortion illegal in cases of rape.

By rescinding Roe vs Wade, even more people will be able to live in a region where abortion laws coincide with their personal beliefs.

That's got to be one of the most hilarious takes on Roe vs. Wade I've read in some time. Be honest, did you chuckle when you wrote this, since when is it the laws function to build safe spaces for the delusions of people?

Republicans have made it abundantly clear, they do not want women to abort under any circumstance.

We know this because their proposals are neither science nor fact based.

We know this because countless republicans have said so.

We know this because the states like Iowa have already proposed laws that give women that have been raped a mere 45 days to report the crime in order to receive a permit for an abortion.

First of all, do any of you even understand the Constitution? What part of the 10th Amendment do you not understand? Nearly all of our laws are made at the State level. Why should laws on abortion be different?

Secondly, most conservatives would restrict abortion to a greater degree than it is restricted now, but would still permit abortion in some circumstances like rape and incest. There are some who would oppose even that (and I understand their viewpoint) but not enough to form a majority in many states. For the most part, I would expect abortions to be limited to first trimesters and not funded by the state in any way, but remain legal otherwise, perhaps with measures like mandatory counseling and parental notification also in place.

Even your case about Iowa is consistent with what I just said. It's a completely understandable stance. The closer a "mass of cells" comes to becoming a viable human, the greater the moral outrage it is to kill it. So enough time should be permitted to discover the pregnancy, but any time beyond that becomes more and more morally untenable. Is this not obvious?

And spare me the fact based argument. What about the abortion issue is not based in fact?

[gtn130]

Interesting you bring up lack of proof here, but jumped on the kavanaugh is guilty bandwagon and shouldnt be confirmed without seeing an ounce of credible evidence

her foundation has taken millions from those countries, that can't be disputed, her name is on said foundation, and yet they dare take money form them, a country that just now let women drive (yet still restrict them from doing almost anything else), yeah she's for women's rights for sure

Dude please spare us the concern trolling about gender equality and women's rights. You're simultaneously supporting Kavanaugh, a very likely sexual assaulter of multiple women while decrying Hillary for merely inauthentically supporting women and not being genuine enough about it in your made up right wing fan fiction world.

You want to say Democrats are being hypocrites and faking all this outrage, but it doesn't matter - Al Franken resigned while Roy Moore and Kavanaugh pushed forward. Democrats may be completely full of **** on this topic(they aren't), but they're walking the walk so it's completely irrelevant.

You dont know me so you can take it down a notch, dude???, seriously what are you a tween? Very likely sexual assaulter according to who? You? Avenetti? 3 women who likely are pro choice? yeah, there's validity there. Whereas, you can prove the Clinton foundation received money from Saudi, UAE, Yemen, etc, see the difference? One's factual and one's speculative.

lmao

Buddy, the right wing talking points you're parroting completely fly in the face of all research that's been done on sexual assault. Multiple studies have concluded that accusers lie about sexual assault anywhere from 2-10% of the time. That's with a single accuser. In other words, it's well over 90+% likely that Kav has sexually assaulted ~someone in his life.

But you don't care about that because you really just want it one way. The nonsense you're throwing around about the Clinton Foundation has all been debunked or proven to be wildly overstated. Not going down the rabbit hole on that one, though - especially since you can, you know, just go read about it yourself.