|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 06 2017 11:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 11:31 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On December 06 2017 10:09 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 09:49 Tachion wrote:On December 06 2017 09:35 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 08:30 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 08:15 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 06 2017 08:11 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 08:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Is opposing eroding Roe v. Wade to not applying after 20 weeks what makes Jones a "radical" on abortion? Because he's gone on record saying he doesn't support any additional protections for abortion after the Roe v. Wade benchmark at this time, and his initial "radical" response that circulates in right-wing circles is based upon a comment made about a House bill pushing the age back to 20 weeks.
Just curious what is motivating people to consider him radical in light of his official campaign statements in November. Maybe you just believe he's lying about that and really would push for post-24 week protections? He did an interview recently (I think Danglers posted a transcript of it) that was pretty telling. I assume you mean the MSNBC interview from September? Because here's what he said November 2nd."Having said that, the law for decades has been that late-term procedures are generally restricted except in the case of medical necessity. That's what I support. I don't see any changes in that. It is a personal decision." I missed Danglar's response when I brought this up earlier, so maybe there was something in the last month I missed? My current searches haven't turned up anything but I could just not be finding what I don't want to find. Over and over this September interview about the 20 week pushback is brought up on Breitbart/National Review articles from the last month, though. Edit: This is kind of a sticking point to me because it's even worse than ignoring the part of the "basket of deplorables" speech that said Republicans are people too and we need to reach out and understand their point of view and legitimate grievances, which really pissed me off when people refused to read beyond a single sentence (though it was of course still a dumb thing to say). i'd have to find it again, but his history is pretty clear. Even in the MSNBC interview, when asked about a ban at 20 weeks, he flatly rejects it. Even if he has recently backed off then no, I still wouldn't believe him. Though if he wants to win or keep his seat he might be so inclined to moderate himself. You nailed it. The issue is believing or trusting that he changed his mind, or made a massive error judging the mother's interest over the baby's. Hillary Clinton would be president today if politics meant every retraction was just as believed as the first major statement. Also hurting Jones's case is the Democratic party's recent activism on abortion, having included in the 2016 platform for the first time a call to end the Hyde Amendment, meaning Alabama taxpayer dollars will be used to fund abortions. With the way Republicans have been rallying around defunding Planned Parenthood, I bet people in Alabama already think federal funds were going towards abortions. Money's fungible, and $500bil a year to the organization making 320,000 abortions a year, or one every 97 seconds will give anyone pause. Except that organization also spends most of their money on things that prevent abortions from being needed like contraceptives. If you hate abortions defunding planned parenthood is about the stupidest thing you could do, but it will continue to be a rallying cry. The largest abortion provider in the US will always get flak. Other organizations not so dedicated to aborting babies can offer contraceptives and better counseling. They even turn away expecting mothers wanting ultrasounds. It’s been clear from the beginning that they affirm only one choice.
When those organizations actually exist you let me know and we can give federal funds to them instead. Those organizations could offer contraceptives and sex education, but instead they promote abstinence and then wonder why there are so many unwanted pregnancies.
|
On December 06 2017 11:56 Nevuk wrote:
Other organizations are dedicated to preventing sex, not preventing abortions.
The question is if other facilities suck at contraceptives, because the death counts a little high to get that service as the cherry on top.
|
On December 06 2017 07:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:02 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 06:51 Plansix wrote:
This is why people don't like Jeff Flake. Not because he's too principled, no. But because he's willing to jettison his principles to make himself feel good. If you are as conservative as Flake claims to be, how on this earth could you rationalize, not just staying home, but actively supporting someone who is opposed to you? "For the good of the country?" bs. Where is his righteous indignation at people outside his party? Later Flake, your name suits you. Because the other side is a fucking child molester...
Child is not really an apt descriptor. When people say child, the first thing that comes to mind are not 16-17 year olds. In fact, I doubt it comes to mind for most people. I'm not a Moore fan (not by any coherent stretch), but let's also not start calling 16-17 year olds children.
|
On December 06 2017 07:28 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:02 Introvert wrote:This is why people don't like Jeff Flake. Not because he's too principled, no. But because he's willing to jettison his principles to make himself feel good. If you are as conservative as Flake claims to be, how on this earth could you rationalize, not just staying home, but actively supporting someone who is opposed to you? "For the good of the country?" bs. Where is his righteous indignation at people outside his party? Later Flake, your name suits you. The whole idea of "staying home instead of voting" isn't actually "real" though. It is entirely self-serving pat on the back nonsense to pretend that abstaining from an election is real. If someone is poised to win, you support that person by not voting for the other guy. Letting someone win, but not voting for them, is no different than voting for them in this case. Roy Moore is the clear favorite to win and if people don't like that, they need to vote against him.
If that's the case, we're all guilty of murder then for all the deaths associated to starvation and poverty around the world. You're abstaining from helping and in doing so you're responsible for their deaths. Your argument isn't a cogent one. I'd re-think it (or apply it universally to see how screwed up it is).
|
United States24740 Posts
My repeated attempts to try to get people to stop undermining the case against Roy Moore by referring to him as unsuitable because he's a pedo were ignored, and I eventually gave up.
|
On December 06 2017 11:57 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 11:49 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 11:31 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On December 06 2017 10:09 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 09:49 Tachion wrote:On December 06 2017 09:35 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 08:30 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 08:15 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 06 2017 08:11 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 08:07 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Is opposing eroding Roe v. Wade to not applying after 20 weeks what makes Jones a "radical" on abortion? Because he's gone on record saying he doesn't support any additional protections for abortion after the Roe v. Wade benchmark at this time, and his initial "radical" response that circulates in right-wing circles is based upon a comment made about a House bill pushing the age back to 20 weeks.
Just curious what is motivating people to consider him radical in light of his official campaign statements in November. Maybe you just believe he's lying about that and really would push for post-24 week protections? He did an interview recently (I think Danglers posted a transcript of it) that was pretty telling. I assume you mean the MSNBC interview from September? Because here's what he said November 2nd."Having said that, the law for decades has been that late-term procedures are generally restricted except in the case of medical necessity. That's what I support. I don't see any changes in that. It is a personal decision." I missed Danglar's response when I brought this up earlier, so maybe there was something in the last month I missed? My current searches haven't turned up anything but I could just not be finding what I don't want to find. Over and over this September interview about the 20 week pushback is brought up on Breitbart/National Review articles from the last month, though. Edit: This is kind of a sticking point to me because it's even worse than ignoring the part of the "basket of deplorables" speech that said Republicans are people too and we need to reach out and understand their point of view and legitimate grievances, which really pissed me off when people refused to read beyond a single sentence (though it was of course still a dumb thing to say). i'd have to find it again, but his history is pretty clear. Even in the MSNBC interview, when asked about a ban at 20 weeks, he flatly rejects it. Even if he has recently backed off then no, I still wouldn't believe him. Though if he wants to win or keep his seat he might be so inclined to moderate himself. You nailed it. The issue is believing or trusting that he changed his mind, or made a massive error judging the mother's interest over the baby's. Hillary Clinton would be president today if politics meant every retraction was just as believed as the first major statement. Also hurting Jones's case is the Democratic party's recent activism on abortion, having included in the 2016 platform for the first time a call to end the Hyde Amendment, meaning Alabama taxpayer dollars will be used to fund abortions. With the way Republicans have been rallying around defunding Planned Parenthood, I bet people in Alabama already think federal funds were going towards abortions. Money's fungible, and $500bil a year to the organization making 320,000 abortions a year, or one every 97 seconds will give anyone pause. Except that organization also spends most of their money on things that prevent abortions from being needed like contraceptives. If you hate abortions defunding planned parenthood is about the stupidest thing you could do, but it will continue to be a rallying cry. The largest abortion provider in the US will always get flak. Other organizations not so dedicated to aborting babies can offer contraceptives and better counseling. They even turn away expecting mothers wanting ultrasounds. It’s been clear from the beginning that they affirm only one choice. When those organizations actually exist you let me know and we can give federal funds to them instead. Those organizations could offer contraceptives and sex education, but instead they promote abstinence and then wonder why there are so many unwanted pregnancies.
![[image loading]](https://lozierinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/NATIONAL_PAGE1_cli-adf_pp_map_us_sept.jpg)
We can start with those. More when the money gets redistributed more productively.
|
On December 06 2017 11:59 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:23 Gorsameth wrote:On December 06 2017 07:02 Introvert wrote:This is why people don't like Jeff Flake. Not because he's too principled, no. But because he's willing to jettison his principles to make himself feel good. If you are as conservative as Flake claims to be, how on this earth could you rationalize, not just staying home, but actively supporting someone who is opposed to you? "For the good of the country?" bs. Where is his righteous indignation at people outside his party? Later Flake, your name suits you. Because the other side is a fucking child molester... Child is not really an apt descriptor. When people say child, the first thing that comes to mind are not 16-17 year olds. In fact, I doubt it comes to mind for most people. I'm not a Moore fan (not by any coherent stretch), but let's also not start calling 16-17 year olds children.
One of them is 14
|
On December 06 2017 11:59 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:23 Gorsameth wrote:On December 06 2017 07:02 Introvert wrote:This is why people don't like Jeff Flake. Not because he's too principled, no. But because he's willing to jettison his principles to make himself feel good. If you are as conservative as Flake claims to be, how on this earth could you rationalize, not just staying home, but actively supporting someone who is opposed to you? "For the good of the country?" bs. Where is his righteous indignation at people outside his party? Later Flake, your name suits you. Because the other side is a fucking child molester... Child is not really an apt descriptor. When people say child, the first thing that comes to mind are not 16-17 year olds. In fact, I doubt it comes to mind for most people. I'm not a Moore fan (not by any coherent stretch), but let's also not start calling 16-17 year olds children.
If somebody is a minor, they're a child to me.
|
On December 06 2017 12:02 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 11:57 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On December 06 2017 11:49 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 11:31 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On December 06 2017 10:09 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 09:49 Tachion wrote:On December 06 2017 09:35 Danglars wrote:On December 06 2017 08:30 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 08:15 TheTenthDoc wrote:On December 06 2017 08:11 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
He did an interview recently (I think Danglers posted a transcript of it) that was pretty telling. I assume you mean the MSNBC interview from September? Because here's what he said November 2nd."Having said that, the law for decades has been that late-term procedures are generally restricted except in the case of medical necessity. That's what I support. I don't see any changes in that. It is a personal decision." I missed Danglar's response when I brought this up earlier, so maybe there was something in the last month I missed? My current searches haven't turned up anything but I could just not be finding what I don't want to find. Over and over this September interview about the 20 week pushback is brought up on Breitbart/National Review articles from the last month, though. Edit: This is kind of a sticking point to me because it's even worse than ignoring the part of the "basket of deplorables" speech that said Republicans are people too and we need to reach out and understand their point of view and legitimate grievances, which really pissed me off when people refused to read beyond a single sentence (though it was of course still a dumb thing to say). i'd have to find it again, but his history is pretty clear. Even in the MSNBC interview, when asked about a ban at 20 weeks, he flatly rejects it. Even if he has recently backed off then no, I still wouldn't believe him. Though if he wants to win or keep his seat he might be so inclined to moderate himself. You nailed it. The issue is believing or trusting that he changed his mind, or made a massive error judging the mother's interest over the baby's. Hillary Clinton would be president today if politics meant every retraction was just as believed as the first major statement. Also hurting Jones's case is the Democratic party's recent activism on abortion, having included in the 2016 platform for the first time a call to end the Hyde Amendment, meaning Alabama taxpayer dollars will be used to fund abortions. With the way Republicans have been rallying around defunding Planned Parenthood, I bet people in Alabama already think federal funds were going towards abortions. Money's fungible, and $500bil a year to the organization making 320,000 abortions a year, or one every 97 seconds will give anyone pause. Except that organization also spends most of their money on things that prevent abortions from being needed like contraceptives. If you hate abortions defunding planned parenthood is about the stupidest thing you could do, but it will continue to be a rallying cry. The largest abortion provider in the US will always get flak. Other organizations not so dedicated to aborting babies can offer contraceptives and better counseling. They even turn away expecting mothers wanting ultrasounds. It’s been clear from the beginning that they affirm only one choice. When those organizations actually exist you let me know and we can give federal funds to them instead. Those organizations could offer contraceptives and sex education, but instead they promote abstinence and then wonder why there are so many unwanted pregnancies. https://lozierinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/NATIONAL_PAGE1_cli-adf_pp_map_us_sept.jpgWe can start with those. More when the money gets redistributed more productively.
Sure thing. Republicans already control all three branches and just made a budget, but did it include anything about this hugely important issue that a huge proportion of voters care about? I do recall reading that they managed to throw in some tidbit about life starting at contraception though. Gotta keep milking that golden goose instead of doing anything about it.
|
Nope, Republicans only care about abortions during an election.
|
The answer to women's health is to legalize it. Put warning label on the bottle if you have to, or make the individual sign a waiver saying they understand the possible side effects, or whatever, but having stuff like the pill be a prescription is asinine. There's no inherent reason for PP or to support PP if women's healthcare was OTC.
|
United States43219 Posts
On December 06 2017 12:01 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:28 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2017 07:02 Introvert wrote:This is why people don't like Jeff Flake. Not because he's too principled, no. But because he's willing to jettison his principles to make himself feel good. If you are as conservative as Flake claims to be, how on this earth could you rationalize, not just staying home, but actively supporting someone who is opposed to you? "For the good of the country?" bs. Where is his righteous indignation at people outside his party? Later Flake, your name suits you. The whole idea of "staying home instead of voting" isn't actually "real" though. It is entirely self-serving pat on the back nonsense to pretend that abstaining from an election is real. If someone is poised to win, you support that person by not voting for the other guy. Letting someone win, but not voting for them, is no different than voting for them in this case. Roy Moore is the clear favorite to win and if people don't like that, they need to vote against him. If that's the case, we're all guilty of murder then for all the deaths associated to starvation and poverty around the world. You're abstaining from helping and in doing so you're responsible for their deaths. Your argument isn't a cogent one. I'd re-think it (or apply it universally to see how screwed up it is).
Not murder, but yeah, kinda?
I have financial resources at my disposal with which I can direct the market to create goods and distribute them. I choose to direct them to do so selfishly, mainly because the people starving are far enough away from me that I don't have to acknowledge that I'm doing it. If they were starving outside my house I'd probably do differently. That's on me, and if Jesus is real I'm going to have to explain why I felt the dumb shit I buy was more important one day.
Consider the classic example of the trolley and the people tied up on the tracks. Guilty of murder would be tying them up there and starting the trolley. But the bystander who understands the situation and makes a choice not to pull the lever is indicating a preference that the people die. He can't subsequently insist that he abstained, not when he knew that abstention led to one outcome and action led to the other. Inaction is still a vote. He's still choosing for them to die, even if he's not the murderer.
|
On December 06 2017 12:01 micronesia wrote:
My repeated attempts to try to get people to stop undermining the case against Roy Moore by referring to him as unsuitable because he's a pedo were ignored, and I eventually gave up.
If the opposition had any brains, they'd drop the pedo act and focus on the fact Roy Moore has a rich history of being completely lawless.
|
On December 06 2017 12:06 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 11:59 Wegandi wrote:On December 06 2017 07:23 Gorsameth wrote:On December 06 2017 07:02 Introvert wrote:This is why people don't like Jeff Flake. Not because he's too principled, no. But because he's willing to jettison his principles to make himself feel good. If you are as conservative as Flake claims to be, how on this earth could you rationalize, not just staying home, but actively supporting someone who is opposed to you? "For the good of the country?" bs. Where is his righteous indignation at people outside his party? Later Flake, your name suits you. Because the other side is a fucking child molester... Child is not really an apt descriptor. When people say child, the first thing that comes to mind are not 16-17 year olds. In fact, I doubt it comes to mind for most people. I'm not a Moore fan (not by any coherent stretch), but let's also not start calling 16-17 year olds children. If somebody is a minor, they're a child to me.
So, you're telling me, someone who can sign up for the Armed Services go and die in a foreign country is a child. Or, someone who has their driver's license and works 35 hours a week and goes to college (yes, you can do all those things before you're 18) is a child. Dude, stop letting some politicians do your own thinking (e.g. the "legal age limit" of 18).
|
United States43219 Posts
On December 06 2017 12:07 Wegandi wrote:
The answer to women's health is to legalize it. Put warning label on the bottle if you have to, or make the individual sign a waiver saying they understand the possible side effects, or whatever, but having stuff like the pill be a prescription is asinine. There's no inherent reason for PP or to support PP if women's healthcare was OTC.
The religious right would say you were legalizing murder.
|
United States43219 Posts
On December 06 2017 12:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 12:01 micronesia wrote:
My repeated attempts to try to get people to stop undermining the case against Roy Moore by referring to him as unsuitable because he's a pedo were ignored, and I eventually gave up. If the opposition had any brains, they'd drop the pedo act and focus on the fact Roy Moore has a rich history of being completely lawless.
In Alabama? With conservative voters? Wouldn't work.
You've got to tailor the message to the voters in question.
The winning message would be if he'd fucked an adult man, that'd get them to desert him. But pedophilia? In Alabama?
|
On December 06 2017 12:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 12:01 Wegandi wrote:On December 06 2017 07:28 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2017 07:02 Introvert wrote:This is why people don't like Jeff Flake. Not because he's too principled, no. But because he's willing to jettison his principles to make himself feel good. If you are as conservative as Flake claims to be, how on this earth could you rationalize, not just staying home, but actively supporting someone who is opposed to you? "For the good of the country?" bs. Where is his righteous indignation at people outside his party? Later Flake, your name suits you. The whole idea of "staying home instead of voting" isn't actually "real" though. It is entirely self-serving pat on the back nonsense to pretend that abstaining from an election is real. If someone is poised to win, you support that person by not voting for the other guy. Letting someone win, but not voting for them, is no different than voting for them in this case. Roy Moore is the clear favorite to win and if people don't like that, they need to vote against him. If that's the case, we're all guilty of murder then for all the deaths associated to starvation and poverty around the world. You're abstaining from helping and in doing so you're responsible for their deaths. Your argument isn't a cogent one. I'd re-think it (or apply it universally to see how screwed up it is). Not murder, but yeah, kinda? I have financial resources at my disposal with which I can direct the market to create goods and distribute them. I choose to direct them to do so selfishly, mainly because the people starving are far enough away from me that I don't have to acknowledge that I'm doing it. If they were starving outside my house I'd probably do differently. That's on me, and if Jesus is real I'm going to have to explain why I felt the dumb shit I buy was more important one day. Consider the classic example of the trolley and the people tied up on the tracks. Guilty of murder would be tying them up there and starting the trolley. But the bystander who understands the situation and makes a choice not to pull the lever is indicating a preference that the people die. He can't subsequently insist that he abstained, not when he knew that abstention led to one outcome and action led to the other. Inaction is still a vote. He's still choosing for them to die, even if he's not the murderer.
You're telling me there is no uncertainty with the Alabama Senate election? (I'm going to take your argument at face value here) I thought Hillary had a 99.8% chance to win and yet, she lost. The future is basically defined as uncertainty, even if you believe a thing to be an overwhelmingly likely event to happen, that's still not the absence of uncertainty. You're going to have to describe how there is no uncertainty in the Alabama senate election for your argument to hold.
|
On December 06 2017 12:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 12:07 Wegandi wrote:
The answer to women's health is to legalize it. Put warning label on the bottle if you have to, or make the individual sign a waiver saying they understand the possible side effects, or whatever, but having stuff like the pill be a prescription is asinine. There's no inherent reason for PP or to support PP if women's healthcare was OTC. The religious right would say you were legalizing murder.
I don't care what they say. The stuff is all ready legal - we're talking about access. (Also, the amount of people who believe pill = abortion, are the extreme of the extreme. The average person on the "right" doesn't equate the two)
|
United States43219 Posts
On December 06 2017 12:13 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 12:08 KwarK wrote:On December 06 2017 12:01 Wegandi wrote:On December 06 2017 07:28 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2017 07:02 Introvert wrote:This is why people don't like Jeff Flake. Not because he's too principled, no. But because he's willing to jettison his principles to make himself feel good. If you are as conservative as Flake claims to be, how on this earth could you rationalize, not just staying home, but actively supporting someone who is opposed to you? "For the good of the country?" bs. Where is his righteous indignation at people outside his party? Later Flake, your name suits you. The whole idea of "staying home instead of voting" isn't actually "real" though. It is entirely self-serving pat on the back nonsense to pretend that abstaining from an election is real. If someone is poised to win, you support that person by not voting for the other guy. Letting someone win, but not voting for them, is no different than voting for them in this case. Roy Moore is the clear favorite to win and if people don't like that, they need to vote against him. If that's the case, we're all guilty of murder then for all the deaths associated to starvation and poverty around the world. You're abstaining from helping and in doing so you're responsible for their deaths. Your argument isn't a cogent one. I'd re-think it (or apply it universally to see how screwed up it is). Not murder, but yeah, kinda? I have financial resources at my disposal with which I can direct the market to create goods and distribute them. I choose to direct them to do so selfishly, mainly because the people starving are far enough away from me that I don't have to acknowledge that I'm doing it. If they were starving outside my house I'd probably do differently. That's on me, and if Jesus is real I'm going to have to explain why I felt the dumb shit I buy was more important one day. Consider the classic example of the trolley and the people tied up on the tracks. Guilty of murder would be tying them up there and starting the trolley. But the bystander who understands the situation and makes a choice not to pull the lever is indicating a preference that the people die. He can't subsequently insist that he abstained, not when he knew that abstention led to one outcome and action led to the other. Inaction is still a vote. He's still choosing for them to die, even if he's not the murderer. You're telling me there is no uncertainty with the Alabama Senate election? (I'm going to take your argument at face value here) I thought Hillary had a 99.8% chance to win and yet, she lost. The future is basically defined as uncertainty, even if you believe a thing to be an overwhelmingly likely event to happen, that's still not the absence of uncertainty. You're going to have to describe how there is no uncertainty in the Alabama senate election for your argument to hold.
Inaction is morally justifiable in the event that any action is unlikely to change the event.
Nobody was making the argument that it is principled to abstain because the vote was meaningless. The entire argument about whether it was principled to vote for or against the child molester was predicated on the assumption that the vote could in some way influence the outcome.
I don't disagree with you about the issue of certainty of influence. You're right, the argument for abstention is best rooted in the irrelevance of the vote. But that's not what was being discussed, Introvert was suggesting that it was possible to take a principled stance against candidate A without voting for candidate B.
|
On December 06 2017 12:06 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 11:59 Wegandi wrote:On December 06 2017 07:23 Gorsameth wrote:On December 06 2017 07:02 Introvert wrote:This is why people don't like Jeff Flake. Not because he's too principled, no. But because he's willing to jettison his principles to make himself feel good. If you are as conservative as Flake claims to be, how on this earth could you rationalize, not just staying home, but actively supporting someone who is opposed to you? "For the good of the country?" bs. Where is his righteous indignation at people outside his party? Later Flake, your name suits you. Because the other side is a fucking child molester... Child is not really an apt descriptor. When people say child, the first thing that comes to mind are not 16-17 year olds. In fact, I doubt it comes to mind for most people. I'm not a Moore fan (not by any coherent stretch), but let's also not start calling 16-17 year olds children. If somebody is a minor, they're a child to me.
I thought the understanding is that child is equivalent to minor in this context. Perhaps that should be made more clear. The distinction between child and teenager is irrelevant in the eyes of the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
