Trump must've been so disappointed he wasn't able to make a political stunt out of this. That was like, his entire reason for going.

He was invited. Where was Biden and Harris?

While I agree with the need for judicial change I think the blame for the current blatant judicial activism rests squarely on McConnell, Trump, and the Federalist Society. Project 2025, written largely by Trump's people, will take things much further if he is elected.

That’s a lie and misrepresentation of my view. — NOS4A2

I honestly have no idea what the lie is supposed to be.

It's easy to blame Republicans, since they had the majority in the Senate, in the last 40 years or so. But the problem seems to be the laws and standards pertaining to the judicial system.

Most of European countries do not appoint judges for life, but only for ten years. There are countries like UK where judges are appointed by some non-political commissions and countries like Germany, Spain, France, etc., where judges are elected by politicians BUT only if they get the 75% of approval in local parliaments/assemblies. So, in these countries there is only one way to become a judge: you should be almost apolitical, cause no party ever controlled 75% of parliament seats and the only way these countries can have judges is through wide consensus and through making sure that the judge is almost impartial.

From history books and legends this is what we are told: you can become a judge only if you are impartial. In the US judicial system that's not the case anymore.

:up:

I didn’t say what you claimed I did.

That’s not helpful. Assuming that you want to clarify where I allegedly lied, can you explain what you mean when you say, “The act is no one’s decision but the woman’s.”?

This appears to mean that you think the state should not to have the power to restrict a woman’s choice.

He was saying that our present approach to abortion is more libertarian than it used to be because states can decide what they want to do.

No, conservative libertarians don’t think that women should have the liberty to choose.

And here is some bad news for Democrats: turns out refutal is a word.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/refutal

This appears to mean that you think the state should not to have the power to restrict a woman’s choice.

That’s right. Then you claimed I said “the state ought to have more right to determine women’s choice because it’s easier to restrict or liberate at the local level”. It appears you made that up. What I said was “state governments ought to have more right to determine their own laws than a federal judiciary”.

At the expense of an actual woman's choice. Very logical.

https://pasteboard.co/PYcv579vrqwX.png

At the expense of an actual woman's choice. Very logical.

What would your thought process look like with out all the fantasy?

Technically a lie, my bad, though a more generous interpretation would be that I was paraphrasing.

The contradiction remains unresolved. To repeat myself:

If you think abortion is a woman’s choice then the state ought not restrict that choice on any level and no matter how easy or difficult. — praxis

Well, you knew what I wrote and then changed it to suit whatever it is you’re trying to do, pretending the whole time that I said one and not the other. That’s pure deception.

There is no contradiction. If I think a state ought to determine its own laws that does not mean I think it ought to prohibit anything it wants.

If I think a state ought to determine its own laws that does not mean I think it ought to prohibit anything it wants. — NOS4A2

We weren’t talking about anything were we? We were talking about abortion.

Anyway, I hope you work out the contradiction some day.

No, conservative libertarians don’t think that women should have the liberty to choose. — praxis

It's a plank of the Libertarian party platform that abortion shouldn't be legislated. here

Brent DeRidder’s opinion is the opinion of all members of the libertarian party of North Carolina, and the opinion of all Libertarians in the US? I wouldn’t have thought that libertarians would relinquish their freedom of opinion so completely to one man.

His main argument suggests that abortions will happen irrespective of legal restrictions, advocating instead for imposing religious beliefs through avenues other than legislation.

The first paragraph is Plank 1.5 of the Libertarian Party platform. Libertarians oppose abortion legislation. This is not rocket science, praxis.

It’s an opinion regarding the principle. The principle is:

1.5 Parental Rights
Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs, provided that the rights of children to be free from abuse and neglect are also protected.

Ok.

Gender division is one of the many gifts we got from the Democrats.

Many women will say that men hate Democrats only because they love equality more than Republicans, but that would not be a strong argument at all (since it is essentially saying that from birth men are inimical towards women, when I am more inclined to believe that all humans are born equal, unbiased and free, till they are manipulated by "educators" and politicians).

https://www.americansurveycenter.org/newsletter/have-democrats-given-up-on-men/

Many women will say that men hate Democrats only because they love equality more than Republicans — Eros1982

I’ve never heard one woman say that. Bullshit strawman.

Brazil Blocks X

Good. Fuck Elon Musk and his fake free speech absolutism. The same guy who caved to Modi and is now suing advertisers he once said could “go fuck themselves” and “Don’t advertise” to is now crying about not being allowed to manipulate an entire country with his right-wing propaganda.

All the brain-dead teenagers will be outraged I’m sure. Now they can pretend to care about free speech and be victims at the same time. Cool.

I’ve never heard one woman say that. — Mikie

You don't read The Guardian.

After the MeToo movement, there are many articles on The Guardian which supposedly show how (white) men have started a campaign of revenge against women. White & old men are taking revenge and punishing intelligent women (according to The Guardian columnists) simply because white men hate the truths and injustices exposed by the MeToo movement.

In some of these articles you get the impression that all white and old men hate women and their anger towards women is an inborn thing that all women should be aware of:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/aug/29/men-women-workplace-study-harassment-harvard-metoo

PS: am I the only one to suspect that Kamala Harris and democrats are targeting single mothers with their 2024 ticket, and whenever Kamala speaks about middle class she doesn't mean American families/couples with median income and small businesses, but she speaks about single mothers (like those she used to advocate for when
she was involved into CA politics and activism)? If I am right in believing that democrats target certain groups in their 2024 campaign, aren't they therefore investing in divides in order to hold power? If that is the case, aren't there any moral dilemmas for people who will vote/support/sponsor a party that bets in divisions simply because it loves power?

In some of these articles you get the impression that all white and old men hate women — Eros1982

Well then your impression is wrong. I’m sure sexism exists, but this cartoon version won’t get you anywhere.

If that is the case, aren't there any moral dilemmas for people who will vote/support/sponsor a party that bets in divisions simply because it loves power? — Eros1982

So targeting different demographics is surprising to you? Have you been living on Mars?

“Bets in divisions.” Right— and it’s somehow the Democrats that should give us pause over this. Not the fact that Trump and his MAGA slaves have single-handedly polarized this country to levels not seen since the civil war, targeting young men, rural people, evangelicals, whites, and the elderly— along with the usual sexists, racists, homophobes, transphobes, and xenophobes that have become a fixture.

But yeah, targeting single women is the real problem.

You might be right about Trump, but after Biden's victory all BLM protests in the US stopped and we got some peace from the fireworks craze. Since none in this country believes that black lives improved with Biden, the logical conclusion is that the democrats signaled their gangsters to stop protests and fireworks. These things may resume again if Trump wins and that's one good reason to not wish a Republican victory. Nonetheless, there is so much evidence that the democrats may be behind BLM, women, and Muslim protests. It is not surprising that the millions given to BLM & diversity issues came from the same billionaires who sponsor the democrats.

Democrats pretend to be saviors and angels and for this reason they should not compare themselves to the Republicans. Democrats are supposed to abide by higher standards lol

Pledging 1.7 trillion to the very poor, as Kamala did ten days ago, turns the US into a kind of charity organization that gives without expecting any worldly things in return. It is not that I am against helping. Morally speaking I feel a duty to help the incapable. But here again you have some moral dilemmas: What vision do I have for a country where inflation is taken more seriously than climate change, wars and violence? Should we bill the future generations for misfortunes (covid and inflation) that happened to us? What kind of culture you create when you nourish a whole nation with the idea that for every hardship you can bill future generations with more debt? What is the best way to use debt? Is it better to invest in progress and development or to use it for food and leisure? Do democrats have any visions for our children and the future? If so, how they will materialize those visions if this country becomes bankrupt and people are encouraged to abstain from family and work?

In conclusion: Democrats and Republicans have become very Machiavellian lately. Their aim is to take power regardless of the means and the people they use. I decided to vote for Biden in 2020 because of Trump's ridiculous response to covid19 and, mostly, because Trump withdrew US from the Paris Climate Treaty. But there are many moral dilemmas pertaining to the Democrats now that I think it is morally advisable to vote for third party candidates or to not vote at all.

In conclusion: Democrats and Republicans have become very Machiavellian lately. — Eros1982

It's always been so. They are in a vicious competition for power in a two-party system. It's just there used to be agreed-on conventions that are now being disregarded, so the viciousness is closer to the surface. A truly moral politician can only be at a disadvantage re power, as morality imposes limitations on action.