|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 12 2022 03:37 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2022 03:21 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 12 2022 01:04 JimmiC wrote:On May 12 2022 00:34 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 21:37 JimmiC wrote:On May 11 2022 12:49 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 11:18 JimmiC wrote:On May 11 2022 11:03 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 08:58 WombaT wrote:So apparently this is happening and Twitter under Musk is going to reverse the Trump ban Link“I think it was a morally bad decision, to be clear, and foolish in the extreme,” he said at a Future of the Car event hosted in London by the Financial Times. He added: “I do think it was not correct to ban Donald Trump. I think that was a mistake – it alienated a large part of the country and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice.” He said the decision to ban Mr Trump from Twitter, taken after the 6 January riot at the US Capitol, did not silence the former president’s voice entirely. Rather it amplified his views among people on the political right, Mr Musk said’ I don’t personally think any of this really makes any sense. The rationale anyway. It has no effect in denying him a voice, but amplified the right and alienated the country? At the same time? This is what giving as incoherent a figure as Elon Musk the keys to the kingdom does. Appears Musk was making the straightforward point that attempts at speech suppression are counterproductive. Take Hunter's laptop as an example. You all heard about it loud and clear, even though Twitter and Facebook banned discussion of it on their platforms. That's because the attempts at suppression merely drew more attention towards what they were trying to suppress. Is "they" facebook and twitter in your post? And what were they trying to suppress? You do realize that 99% of the hunter laptop shit was made up BS, that it existed is the only truth, it may have been ham fisted to just get rid of all the laptop stuff, but can you actually give any examples of information that turned out to be true being banned? Yes Facebook and Twitter and I guess you could say all of the many people who called for it to happen. They were trying to suppress the NY Post and its article about Hunter's laptop. I've said before I think there's strong evidence of a corruption scheme between Joe & Hunter, to the point that it should be under criminal investigation if it's not already. I won't get into that again though as it would probably bog down the thread There is not even weak evidence. An email saying the big guy is absolutely nothing. What has happened is all the BS you read you now believe to be true because the laptop exists. Which since your guys had it for over a year and no actual evidence was found should have convinced of the opposite. Nothing was surpressed because nothing existed which is why again you can not bring up any examples. Stop bringing up his laptop like it proves your point in someway, it proves the opposite, that what was banned was made up assumptions all since proven to be false. How many lawsuits ate pending on Biden? If this secret laptop had actual evidence there would be tons, and yet somehow there is none and your guy has tons happenimg at any given time. If there was a corruption meter Trump would be at 9/10 and Biden 1/10 , and yet you apologize away ones behavior and find the others awful, the one way less corrupt to you is worse. Its bonkers. On May 11 2022 17:16 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 13:13 Mohdoo wrote:
"I will not bring up the topic I just brought up" I mean I brought up the laptop as a case study in speech suppression attempts backfiring. JimmiC then brought up the actual contents of the laptop and their import. But I've laid out my views in the past anyway. You think people should be able to make up anything without evidence. I know you have a computer could I start typing as fact that you had the worst of the worst on it and drink babies blood? Would you want your friends and family to read that as I wrote it all out over and over with zero evidence? People should be accountable for what they say. Freedom of speech never meant freedom of consequences for what is said. The evidence is much more than just the big guy email so I'm not sure why you'd pretend that's all. But again that's a difference issue than what was I was addressing by bringing up the laptop. Then post it, because so far you have just posted the post article which has the big guy and whole bunch of assumptions. Your genius Giuliani had it for over a year and couldn't find anything, the FBI has found nothing. It is time to stop living in fantasy world. edit: as asked of you multiple times, show do not tell. Show the evidence, show the banned posts that are actually true. Prove something. I've posted the evidence in bullet point form with links, I guess I could dig up the post if you really want. Your response then was to demand documentary proof of money moving between hunter and Joe's bank accounts. In other words, you demanded evidence that's 99% of the way to being perfect proof, as opposes to what I offered which gets us about 70-80% of the way. The takeaway is that you're defending Biden tooth and nail because he's your guy and he's not trump. That is not evidence. You do realize that right? Some of it could be circumstantial evidence if you had anything contrete. And no I did not ask for 99% i asked for 25% you are at 5%. I have not asked for money moving from the accounts. I have asked for enough that someone might consider filing charges. Which they have done to your boy Trump repeadly. Biden is not my guy, I would be happy if he was corrupt and taken down. He is simply the other choice and 1000x better than openly corrupt Trump (hey I golf every weekend and it costs the tax payers 750k and puts that money in my pocket, or my charity is shut down because we were taking it, or all the inaugeration money that disapeared and so on). There is no point talking about the laptop because it is out and about and EVERYONE who would want to bring down Biden has had their shot with it. So again please post the "surpressed" posted with things that were true. And do not repost your non evidence, post some actual evidence. Or STFU about it and stop pretending you got some win by it existing. You took a big L because it existed and nothing incriminating was on it.
Lol you most definitely asked to see the money moving between accounts.
https://tl.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27933543
I suspect that at some point, many on the left will be left with egg on their face because we'll reach the point where the allegations against Joe can't be evaded any longer. Btw Hunter is very much under active criminal investigation by the FBI.
|
On May 12 2022 01:19 Kyadytim wrote:
A few questions for people in this thread who agree with the Alito opinion.
What right, if any, do women have that protects them from a government law that mandates women must conceive and carry to term at least one pregnancy every X years? If none, do you believe that such a mandate is a power the government should have, or should women have a right to not be subjected to this law?
If there is such a right, how does a right that protects women against a mandate to conceive and carry pregnancies to term not also protect against a mandate that all women who conceive carry that pregnancy to term?
I don't think it matters. The issue isn't that women don't have the right, it's that they don't -always- have the right. Even if they had the right to decide the outcome of their own conception, the caveat being added is "Except in the case where it has the potential to harm another 'person'". Women's own rights to decision and bodily autonomy are being outweighed by the very child they're carrying.
|
Northern Ireland26017 Posts
On May 12 2022 04:01 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2022 03:37 JimmiC wrote:On May 12 2022 03:21 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 12 2022 01:04 JimmiC wrote:On May 12 2022 00:34 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 21:37 JimmiC wrote:On May 11 2022 12:49 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 11:18 JimmiC wrote:On May 11 2022 11:03 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 08:58 WombaT wrote:So apparently this is happening and Twitter under Musk is going to reverse the Trump ban Link“I think it was a morally bad decision, to be clear, and foolish in the extreme,” he said at a Future of the Car event hosted in London by the Financial Times. He added: “I do think it was not correct to ban Donald Trump. I think that was a mistake – it alienated a large part of the country and did not ultimately result in Donald Trump not having a voice.” He said the decision to ban Mr Trump from Twitter, taken after the 6 January riot at the US Capitol, did not silence the former president’s voice entirely. Rather it amplified his views among people on the political right, Mr Musk said’ I don’t personally think any of this really makes any sense. The rationale anyway. It has no effect in denying him a voice, but amplified the right and alienated the country? At the same time? This is what giving as incoherent a figure as Elon Musk the keys to the kingdom does. Appears Musk was making the straightforward point that attempts at speech suppression are counterproductive. Take Hunter's laptop as an example. You all heard about it loud and clear, even though Twitter and Facebook banned discussion of it on their platforms. That's because the attempts at suppression merely drew more attention towards what they were trying to suppress. Is "they" facebook and twitter in your post? And what were they trying to suppress? You do realize that 99% of the hunter laptop shit was made up BS, that it existed is the only truth, it may have been ham fisted to just get rid of all the laptop stuff, but can you actually give any examples of information that turned out to be true being banned? Yes Facebook and Twitter and I guess you could say all of the many people who called for it to happen. They were trying to suppress the NY Post and its article about Hunter's laptop. I've said before I think there's strong evidence of a corruption scheme between Joe & Hunter, to the point that it should be under criminal investigation if it's not already. I won't get into that again though as it would probably bog down the thread There is not even weak evidence. An email saying the big guy is absolutely nothing. What has happened is all the BS you read you now believe to be true because the laptop exists. Which since your guys had it for over a year and no actual evidence was found should have convinced of the opposite. Nothing was surpressed because nothing existed which is why again you can not bring up any examples. Stop bringing up his laptop like it proves your point in someway, it proves the opposite, that what was banned was made up assumptions all since proven to be false. How many lawsuits ate pending on Biden? If this secret laptop had actual evidence there would be tons, and yet somehow there is none and your guy has tons happenimg at any given time. If there was a corruption meter Trump would be at 9/10 and Biden 1/10 , and yet you apologize away ones behavior and find the others awful, the one way less corrupt to you is worse. Its bonkers. On May 11 2022 17:16 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 13:13 Mohdoo wrote:
"I will not bring up the topic I just brought up" I mean I brought up the laptop as a case study in speech suppression attempts backfiring. JimmiC then brought up the actual contents of the laptop and their import. But I've laid out my views in the past anyway. You think people should be able to make up anything without evidence. I know you have a computer could I start typing as fact that you had the worst of the worst on it and drink babies blood? Would you want your friends and family to read that as I wrote it all out over and over with zero evidence? People should be accountable for what they say. Freedom of speech never meant freedom of consequences for what is said. The evidence is much more than just the big guy email so I'm not sure why you'd pretend that's all. But again that's a difference issue than what was I was addressing by bringing up the laptop. Then post it, because so far you have just posted the post article which has the big guy and whole bunch of assumptions. Your genius Giuliani had it for over a year and couldn't find anything, the FBI has found nothing. It is time to stop living in fantasy world. edit: as asked of you multiple times, show do not tell. Show the evidence, show the banned posts that are actually true. Prove something. I've posted the evidence in bullet point form with links, I guess I could dig up the post if you really want. Your response then was to demand documentary proof of money moving between hunter and Joe's bank accounts. In other words, you demanded evidence that's 99% of the way to being perfect proof, as opposes to what I offered which gets us about 70-80% of the way. The takeaway is that you're defending Biden tooth and nail because he's your guy and he's not trump. That is not evidence. You do realize that right? Some of it could be circumstantial evidence if you had anything contrete. And no I did not ask for 99% i asked for 25% you are at 5%. I have not asked for money moving from the accounts. I have asked for enough that someone might consider filing charges. Which they have done to your boy Trump repeadly. Biden is not my guy, I would be happy if he was corrupt and taken down. He is simply the other choice and 1000x better than openly corrupt Trump (hey I golf every weekend and it costs the tax payers 750k and puts that money in my pocket, or my charity is shut down because we were taking it, or all the inaugeration money that disapeared and so on). There is no point talking about the laptop because it is out and about and EVERYONE who would want to bring down Biden has had their shot with it. So again please post the "surpressed" posted with things that were true. And do not repost your non evidence, post some actual evidence. Or STFU about it and stop pretending you got some win by it existing. You took a big L because it existed and nothing incriminating was on it. Lol you most definitely asked to see the money moving between accounts. I suspect that at some point, many on the left will be left with egg on their face because we'll reach the point where the allegations against Joe can't be evaded any longer. Btw Hunter is very much under active criminal investigation by the FBI.
Aurora Borealis!? At this time of year, at this time of day, at this part of the country, localized entirely within your kitchen?! ‘A laptop containing all of the evidence of your claims, that is currently in your possession?’
‘May I see it?’
‘No’
|
On May 12 2022 04:04 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2022 01:19 Kyadytim wrote:
A few questions for people in this thread who agree with the Alito opinion.
What right, if any, do women have that protects them from a government law that mandates women must conceive and carry to term at least one pregnancy every X years? If none, do you believe that such a mandate is a power the government should have, or should women have a right to not be subjected to this law?
If there is such a right, how does a right that protects women against a mandate to conceive and carry pregnancies to term not also protect against a mandate that all women who conceive carry that pregnancy to term? I don't think it matters. The issue isn't that women don't have the right, it's that they don't -always- have the right. Even if they had the right to decide the outcome of their own conception, the caveat being added is "Except in the case where it has the potential to harm another 'person'". Women's own rights to decision and bodily autonomy are being outweighed by the very child they're carrying.
For me, that reasoning collapses once you call the fetuses in question "children". They which can't survive without their mothers in any circumstance, and some even have fatal deformations.
The debate about until which week and under which circumstances it should be allowed is interesting and important, but all-out bans lead to nothing but tragedy, it has been tried, with abseutely disgusting results like women being convicted of murder after a natural miscarriage following rape.
|
|
|
On May 12 2022 04:08 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2022 04:01 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 12 2022 03:37 JimmiC wrote:On May 12 2022 03:21 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 12 2022 01:04 JimmiC wrote:On May 12 2022 00:34 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 21:37 JimmiC wrote:On May 11 2022 12:49 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 11:18 JimmiC wrote:On May 11 2022 11:03 Doc.Rivers wrote:
[quote]
Appears Musk was making the straightforward point that attempts at speech suppression are counterproductive. Take Hunter's laptop as an example. You all heard about it loud and clear, even though Twitter and Facebook banned discussion of it on their platforms. That's because the attempts at suppression merely drew more attention towards what they were trying to suppress.
Is "they" facebook and twitter in your post? And what were they trying to suppress? You do realize that 99% of the hunter laptop shit was made up BS, that it existed is the only truth, it may have been ham fisted to just get rid of all the laptop stuff, but can you actually give any examples of information that turned out to be true being banned? Yes Facebook and Twitter and I guess you could say all of the many people who called for it to happen. They were trying to suppress the NY Post and its article about Hunter's laptop. I've said before I think there's strong evidence of a corruption scheme between Joe & Hunter, to the point that it should be under criminal investigation if it's not already. I won't get into that again though as it would probably bog down the thread There is not even weak evidence. An email saying the big guy is absolutely nothing. What has happened is all the BS you read you now believe to be true because the laptop exists. Which since your guys had it for over a year and no actual evidence was found should have convinced of the opposite. Nothing was surpressed because nothing existed which is why again you can not bring up any examples. Stop bringing up his laptop like it proves your point in someway, it proves the opposite, that what was banned was made up assumptions all since proven to be false. How many lawsuits ate pending on Biden? If this secret laptop had actual evidence there would be tons, and yet somehow there is none and your guy has tons happenimg at any given time. If there was a corruption meter Trump would be at 9/10 and Biden 1/10 , and yet you apologize away ones behavior and find the others awful, the one way less corrupt to you is worse. Its bonkers. On May 11 2022 17:16 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 11 2022 13:13 Mohdoo wrote:
"I will not bring up the topic I just brought up" I mean I brought up the laptop as a case study in speech suppression attempts backfiring. JimmiC then brought up the actual contents of the laptop and their import. But I've laid out my views in the past anyway. You think people should be able to make up anything without evidence. I know you have a computer could I start typing as fact that you had the worst of the worst on it and drink babies blood? Would you want your friends and family to read that as I wrote it all out over and over with zero evidence? People should be accountable for what they say. Freedom of speech never meant freedom of consequences for what is said. The evidence is much more than just the big guy email so I'm not sure why you'd pretend that's all. But again that's a difference issue than what was I was addressing by bringing up the laptop. Then post it, because so far you have just posted the post article which has the big guy and whole bunch of assumptions. Your genius Giuliani had it for over a year and couldn't find anything, the FBI has found nothing. It is time to stop living in fantasy world. edit: as asked of you multiple times, show do not tell. Show the evidence, show the banned posts that are actually true. Prove something. I've posted the evidence in bullet point form with links, I guess I could dig up the post if you really want. Your response then was to demand documentary proof of money moving between hunter and Joe's bank accounts. In other words, you demanded evidence that's 99% of the way to being perfect proof, as opposes to what I offered which gets us about 70-80% of the way. The takeaway is that you're defending Biden tooth and nail because he's your guy and he's not trump. That is not evidence. You do realize that right? Some of it could be circumstantial evidence if you had anything contrete. And no I did not ask for 99% i asked for 25% you are at 5%. I have not asked for money moving from the accounts. I have asked for enough that someone might consider filing charges. Which they have done to your boy Trump repeadly. Biden is not my guy, I would be happy if he was corrupt and taken down. He is simply the other choice and 1000x better than openly corrupt Trump (hey I golf every weekend and it costs the tax payers 750k and puts that money in my pocket, or my charity is shut down because we were taking it, or all the inaugeration money that disapeared and so on). There is no point talking about the laptop because it is out and about and EVERYONE who would want to bring down Biden has had their shot with it. So again please post the "surpressed" posted with things that were true. And do not repost your non evidence, post some actual evidence. Or STFU about it and stop pretending you got some win by it existing. You took a big L because it existed and nothing incriminating was on it. Lol you most definitely asked to see the money moving between accounts. I suspect that at some point, many on the left will be left with egg on their face because we'll reach the point where the allegations against Joe can't be evaded any longer. Btw Hunter is very much under active criminal investigation by the FBI. Aurora Borealis!? At this time of year, at this time of day, at this part of the country, localized entirely within your kitchen?! ‘A laptop containing all of the evidence of your claims, that is currently in your possession?’ ‘May I see it?’ ‘No’
LOL
|
|
|
Giuliani et al certainly did a very poor roll out and I don't know why they didn't share the laptop contents at the outset. But now the MSM has authenticated the laptop contents. So we can look at those contents and see if there is evidence. When we do that, we see clear evidence of a corruption scheme from which Joe benefitted. (But in order to see that evidence, the partisan blinders and the anti-trump blinders must first be removed.)
My previous posts on the evidence:
https://tl.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27933454
https://tl.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=27933534
|
Northern Ireland26017 Posts
Claiming other people need to remove partisan blinders is genuinely a breathtaking request. It’s getting beyond preposterous at this stage.
Let’s see the evidence and what that tells us, i certainly won’t have egg on my face either way, all I’ve ever requested is evidence of these claims. I’ve never nailed my colours to the mast that these accusations are impossible
How many years of this stuff still sitting on this fabled, fabled laptop with nothing forthcoming would be sufficient for you to concede it’s a nothingburger?
They supposedly had this before an election and spent their time claiming the election was fraudulent rather than using this evidence bomb that proved Biden was engaged in corruption?
Makes a lot of sense. I’m not an expert electioneer, or indeed part of any administration’s inner circle. One rule I did pick up from a brief period of work experience as a teen was that if you find yourself in possession of a bombshell that could torpedo your opponent’s credibility, the only sensible course of option is to hold onto that bombshell until long after the election cycle has concluded, ideally longer.
|
On May 11 2022 08:54 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2022 06:23 Sermokala wrote:
Congratulations drone.
I would like to hear one justification for a lack of exceptions for abortions when the pregnancy is no longer viable. When the law of your jurisdiction says that the woman should die or they will be charged with murder. I don't understand how anyone can have a conversation about abortion without having some sort of viability waiver.
I'm against abortions myself but to condemn women to die or face felony jail time is inarguably evil.
Even banning abortions entirely with a viability waiver is evil. You are either expecting those of means being able to travel to get an abortion, defeating the purpose of the law by making it just an extra burden for women, or you are going to restrict peoples travel over state lines as you demand the common folk to turn each other in like we are in the communist hell scape the right insists democrats want.
There is no argument for banning abortions, or allowing the states to ban abortions, that isn't derived from some insane worse than sharia law zealotry. Isis allows birth control and abortions even. At that point wouldn't they be able to claim self defense?
I can't find fault in your logic, it's dumb as shit but it's pretty airtight. I hope the first women that is charged with murder for an adoption uses a self defence argument. Either the fetus is a person and is attempting to murder you by threatening your health or it's not a person and therefore isn't murder.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26017 Posts
‘Senate Democrats’ attempt to enact a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy into US law ended unceremoniously as all 50 Republican senators joined with Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia to block ending debate on a Democrat-sponsored bill codifying the protections of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v Wade decision.’
Hey look it’s Joe Manchin again! I’m assuming this had a snowball’s chance in hell of getting through but I hadn’t realised the Dems had tried to push such a bill through.
|
It was a last minute, performative thing because it needed 60 votes to get past the filibuster. Doesn’t change Manchin being Manchin though.
|
On May 12 2022 06:47 WombaT wrote:
‘Senate Democrats’ attempt to enact a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy into US law ended unceremoniously as all 50 Republican senators joined with Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia to block ending debate on a Democrat-sponsored bill codifying the protections of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v Wade decision.’
Hey look it’s Joe Manchin again! I’m assuming this had a snowball’s chance in hell of getting through but I hadn’t realised the Dems had tried to push such a bill through. :"Why didn't Democrats protect abortion through legislation"
This would be why.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26017 Posts
On May 12 2022 07:52 JimmiC wrote:
Yep need 60 to do something, and they only sorta have 50.
Where do Republicans fall on doctor assisted suicide. It is hard for me to guess with the being for forced pregnacy but also being for the death penalty.
What about not having insurance de facto suicide?
|
Quick thing on a few items people are mentioning.
1.a every state that has passed an abortion ban that I recall has a provision for abortion the case of the life of the mother/serious injury throughout the entire pregnancy. People mockingly talking about "self-defense" are being ignorant or just dumb.
1.b It is true that many of these states do have total bans in (i.e. "week zero") and some of them don't have rape/incest exceptions. This, however, is not where most will land and at the very least we can put away this talk of risking life. As distasteful as this may be to many, it's not hypocrisy on the part of pro-lifers.
2. most (all?) of these states go after doctors or organizations that perform the abortions not the mothers. While I admit there is some logic in seeking penalties against the potential mom herself, that's unpalatable to most and pro-lifers generally want to help and deter prospective mothers or women who have had abortions to convince them to not do it (again) rather than take any punitive action. And yes, there are lots of smaller orgs that do things like this, not every bit of help has go through a government bureaucracy.
But, amazing as it may sound, people in this thread or generally more ignorant of pro-lifers and what they want and what they do to support women considering abortion than they are of other generally conservative positions. Or maybe just equally ignorant, but they shriek louder on this. This also applies to....
3. conservatives (idk as much about republicans, havent seen any polling) generally oppose doctor assisted suicide. Saying you don't know which side they would come down on based on their death penalty stance is either an admission that you haven't actually thought about it very hard (the logic from either is not hard to think through) or just an attempt at some rhetorical grandstanding.
|
|
|
On May 12 2022 09:40 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2022 08:59 Introvert wrote:
Quick thing on a few items people are mentioning.
1.a every state that has passed an abortion ban that I recall has a provision for abortion the case of the life of the mother/serious injury throughout the entire pregnancy. People mockingly talking about "self-defense" are being ignorant or just dumb.
1.b It is true that many of these states do have total bans in (i.e. "week zero") and some of them don't have rape/incest exceptions. This, however, is not where most will land and at the very least we can put away this talk of risking life. As distasteful as this may be to many, it's not hypocrisy on the part of pro-lifers.
2. most (all?) of these states go after doctors or organizations that perform the abortions not the mothers. While I admit there is some logic in seeking penalties against the potential mom herself, that's unpalatable to most and pro-lifers generally want to help and deter prospective mothers or women who have had abortions to convince them to not do it (again) rather than take any punitive action. And yes, there are lots of smaller orgs that do things like this, not every bit of help has go through a government bureaucracy.
But, amazing as it may sound, people in this thread or generally more ignorant of pro-lifers and what they want and what they do to support women considering abortion than they are of other generally conservative positions. Or maybe just equally ignorant, but they shriek louder on this. This also applies to....
3. conservatives (idk as much about republicans, havent seen any polling) generally oppose doctor assisted suicide. Saying you don't know which side they would come down on based on their death penalty stance is either an admission that you haven't actually thought about it very hard (the logic from either is not hard to think through) or just an attempt at some rhetorical grandstanding.
Nope it is hard to understand why someone who claims they leave judgement to a higher power, believe im forgiveness and value life above all else, would be pro death penalty and against doctor assisted suicide. I guess you only want to kill those who want to live. As for all the other glossing over the extra terrible parts, and then thinking we do not understand that you want only the regular terrible parts sounds like you have not thought to hard about what people are upset about and how terrible it is EVEN if they had the exceptions they do not. Like you think that most of the "prolife" people only want to kill doctors and not the moms is some sort of sensible position.
There are nuances between these different issues that you are ignoring. It's not so simple as to say "they use the moniker pro-life for abortion, therefore to be consistent they must support the European welfare state concept." That would be like me saying "because you believe in a right to bodily autonomy, it is inconsistent for you to also believe that vaccinations should be mandatory."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
