Trump would literally have to defecate in your MAGA cap for you to change your vote, so unless I can get him to do that, I'm not expecting a different answer from you, or any Trump vote — Baden

Trump is too classy to take a hat shit.

You can't go back and change it so who cares? — frank

You don't know what I can do.

You don't know what I can do. — Hanover

You don't know what I know.

The first sixty seconds alone is full of unintentional comic irony. A known racist tries to win over the African American vote, and a corrupt fat cat claims he has no part in the corruption. He has thrived on the corruption inherent in the system. He has exacerbated it!

His trade war is an infantile exercise in futility. Ask any economist. — Baden

It's worse than futility. It's counterproductive. He is cutting off his nose to spite his face. @Agustino, read what The Economist has to say about it.

The prize for your loyalty will be an end to Roe v Wade, an extra two trillion in debt you pass on to the next generation, and a debasement of political discourse including the legitimization of sexism, racism and anti-semitism that will stain your country for years to come. Not to mention Trump's trolling laughter when he walks away from the mess he has created into a huge TV deal.

Or not. That's the other potential outcome.

end to Roe v Wade — Baden

When I was telling you it's gonna happen, you didn't believe me :wink:

I don't see what's so bad about it going to state level. Maybe some communities don't want all kinds of abortions to be legal. They should have this right.

Maybe some communities don't want all kinds of abortions to be legal. They should have this right. — Agustino

Well that's the great debate. They shouldn't have this right because a) the Constitution gives women the right to end their pregnancy, and so the states don't have the legal right to restrict it or b) women have the natural right to end their pregnancy, and so states shouldn't have the legal right to restrict it.

b) women have the natural right to choose to end their pregnancy, and so states shouldn't have the legal right to restrict it. — Michael

I don't think this is a "natural" right at all.

a) the Constitution gives women the right to have an abortion, and so the states don't have the right to restrict it — Michael

Then the Constitution is wrong, how about we change it?

I don't think this is a "natural" right at all. — Agustino

Hence the great debate. Some say it is, others say it isn't. Some say people have the natural right to use firearms in self-defence, others say they don't.

Then the Constitution is wrong, how about we change it? — Agustino

That's what the Amendment process is for.

Hence the great debate. Some say it is, others say it isn't. Some say people have the natural right to use firearms in self-defence, others say they don't. — Michael

There are some matters which don't concern merely the person in question. The life of a child, for example, doesn't concern just the mother. It concerns the rest of society as well. An abortion isn't something the mother does herself, it's something that we, the rest of us, have to do for her. She shouldn't be able to force us to do it for her.

She shouldn't be able to force us to do it for her. — Agustino

She isn't. There are plenty of doctors who are willing. What Roe vs Wade ensured is that no state can make it illegal to have an abortion. That's not the same as ensuring that no doctor can refuse to perform it.

She isn't. There are plenty of doctors who are willing. What Roe vs Wade ensured is that no state can make it illegal to have an abortion. That's not the same as ensuring that no doctor can refuse to perform it. — Michael

Yes, but the community should be able to control its own standards of decency. If liberal Cali's want to have abortion after abortion, that's their problem. But maybe Texans want no abortions in their communities. So that's precisely the problem, that Roe v Wade is controlling how communities are organised. One cannot organise a community where abortions are prohibited.

But maybe Texans want no abortions in their communities. — Agustino

Then it sucks to be them. Because a woman's right to have an abortion (performed by a willing doctor) is more important than other people's desire not to have abortions performed in their community.

Just as I'm sure others will say that a person's right to possess a firearm for self-defence is more important than other people's desire not to have firearms in their community.

Just as I'm sure others will say that a person's right to possess a firearm for self-defence is more important than other people's desire not to have firearms in their community. — Michael

I disagree on that.

Because a woman's right to have an abortion (performed by a willing doctor) is more important than other people's desire not to have abortions performed in their community. — Michael

I disagree. There needs to be a point when the desires of the collective trump the desires of the individual.

My political predictions haven't been much better than my footballing ones. :sad:

Yes, but the community should be able to control its own standards of decency. If liberal Cali's want to have abortion after abortion, that's their problem. But maybe Texans want no abortions in their communities. So that's precisely the problem, that Roe v Wade is controlling how communities are organised. One cannot organise a community where abortions are prohibited. — Agustino

As much as I personally dislike the idea of abortion, I don't think the govt should get involved in this issue, or should legislate morality more generally outside of those issues which clearly impact others in the community in adverse ways.

In my naivety I think people should be led to do what's right and honorable and noble through free choice rather than through government or other forms of external compulsion. And I say that as someone who identifies as a social conservative in many ways.

Best to work at shifting public opinion at the grassroots level.

As much as I personally dislike the idea of abortion, I don't think the govt should get involved in this issue, or should legislate morality more generally outside of those issues which clearly impact others in the community in adverse ways.

In my naivety I think people should be led to do what's right and honorable and noble through free choice rather than through government or other forms of external compulsion. And I say that as someone who identifies as a social conservative in many ways. Best to work at shifting public opinion at the grassroots level. — Erik

I agree, long term that is the adequate strategy. At the same time... is everyone capable of it?

And if they are not, what does that mean?

There needs to be a point when the desires of the collective trump the desires of the individual. — Agustino

Why? And this isn't just about desires but also about rights. Rights, presumably, are more important than desires. If the woman has a right to end her pregnancy and the community only has the desire not to have abortions performed in their community, then the individual right trumps the collective desire.

The right of some gay man to live in peace is more important than the collective desires of some homophobic community, for example.

And if they are not, what does that mean? — Agustino

Depends on the specific act and what type of impact is has on others. I tend in the direction of preserving individual freedom over the desires of the collective - especially on issues related to sex - even though I think that genuine freedom involves much more than license, and would include the factoring in of the affect of one's actions on the wider community.

The prize for your loyalty will be an end to Roe v Wade, an extra two trillion in debt you pass on to the next generation, and a debasement of political discourse including the legitimization of sexism, racism and anti-semitism that will stain your country for years to come. — Baden

CNN talking points which is really speculation, no?

CNN are not the ones aiming to take away your abortion rights by repealing Roe v Wade, Tiff, that's Trump's stated aim. It's on the record. Look it up. He may fail, but if he does it will be despite your help and support and misguided loyalty.

(And though he'll be happy to deny you your reproductive rights, you can bet your ass if his organ had managed to get the porn star pregnant, he would have been serenading her all the way to an abortion clinic.)

CNN are not the ones aiming to take away your abortion rights by repealing Roe v Wade, Tiff, that's Trump's stated aim. It's on the record. Look it up. He may fail, but if he does it will be despite your help and support and misguided loyalty. — Baden

"Ending Roe v Wade" which is what you stated is the same talking point of CNN and NBC, who are all reporting how the new justice will vote on the case that may never see the light of day for change.
It is all speculation, nothing more. IF more comes of it, we will handle it then.

However "an extra two trillion in debt you pass on to the next generation, and a debasement of political discourse including the legitimization of sexism, racism and anti-semitism that will stain your country for years to come" are your words and opinions not the words of our present administration.

Unless you can provide citation of who said that WE as a nation are going to legalize sexism, racism and anti-Semitism, it is all speculation.

"Ending Roe v Wade" which is what you stated is the same talking points of CNN and NBC, — ArguingWAristotleTiff

If you don't even know what Trump supports or what he said, you are in no position to argue. What I said is straight from Trump not the CNN/NBC bogeyman.


Wallace: What I am asking you is do you want to see the court overturn Roe v Wade?

Trump: If we put two or three justices on...that will happen, and that will happen automatically because I am putting pro-life justices on the court.

I quoted Trump so if you want to argue, argue with him.

Unless you can provide citation of who said that WE as a nation are going to legalize sexism, racism and anti-Semitism, it is all speculation. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You need to look up the word "legitimization" in a dictionary, Tiff.

If you don't even know what Trump supports or what he said, you are in no position to argue. What I said is straight from Trump not the CNN/NBC bogeyman — Baden

I understand what Trump said but I also know that CNN and NBC are pushing the point that Roe v Wade will be overturned, as if abortion rights are the only subject that SCOTUS will rule on. If Roe v Wade is overturned, the rights to abortion will return to states rights and that is one step closer to what the people of that state want.

You need to look up the word "legitimization" in a dictionary, Tiff. — Baden

I intentionally bolded "legitimization" when I quoted you and I responded withlegalization.
A LOT of ideas are lent legitimization simply by being held by a leader such as the President but that doesn't make it legitimate. President Bush believes in creationism but do you think that because of that perspective, that the USA citizen who believed in evolution up until he took office now believes in creationism as well?
Come on Baden, give the "WE" who make up the USA a little more credit than that.