2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
Roe uses viability as the starting point for the state to have an interest in protecting the fetus. You claim about Roe is dead wrong.
It certainly uses trimesters as it stated that because abortion is a constitutionally protected right of privacy, the state has no ability to regulate abortions in the first trimester.
However, Casey and Roe really have to be read together.
Under Roe second trimester abortions were fully legal with no required exception, but states could regulate the procedure wrt the woman health effects, nothing to do with allowing them to ban abortions .
All fifty states had to allow abortion till viability because of Roe
There were some wins and some draws. I made a point to sacrifice the exchange in most of the games, with mixed results. Particularly mixed when I hung my other rook. But I think the reason you might not see tilt boy posting for a while is that in the last game I totally ****ed up and hung like all my pieces and he probably had like a mate on 5 or something, and I tricked him into a perpetual and got a draw. That last game is going to keep me laughing all winter.
This doesn't prove what you think it proves at all. Check who the illiterate people are in the states that vote republican 55-60-65%
Under Roe second trimester abortions were fully legal with no required exception, but states could regulate the procedure wrt the woman health effects, nothing to do with allowing them to ban abortions .
All fifty states had to allow abortion till viability because of Roe
I'm sorry you aren't able to understand the words I wrote. When you press most people they will agree that things like health of the mother should allow for exceptions beyond the initial trimester. All of the that was covered within what I wrote believe it or not.
It's only a tiny handful of nuts who believe in total abortion bans. Once you go to 12-14wks+reasonable exceptions beyond it umm hello?
I'm sorry you aren't able to understand the words I wrote. When you press most people they will agree that things like health of the mother should allow for exceptions beyond the initial trimester. All of the that was covered within what I wrote believe it or not.
It's only a tiny handful of nuts who believe in total abortion bans. Once you go to 12-14wks+reasonable exceptions beyond it umm hello?
Man you claimed roe didn't allow for no question asked abortion before availability. That's what i wrote and i understood it. Roe did allow for that.
And people don't know that so they answer they want a ban after 12 weeks (unless exceptions), and they claim they liked roe (which made it unconstitutional to have any blanket ban pre-availibility).
What Roe allowed was a ban in the second trimester if it put the mother life at risk to abort, the opposite of what you think it did. Women could always abort after Roe in the second trimester UNLESS doing so was very risky for their health. But healthy mother, healthy fetus, 20 weeks, Roe constitutionally mandated every state to allow abortions in those cases.
And people, apparently including you, didn't even know that.
Topic is which label could convince some people that killing that person is morally justifiable more, IE which label is more of an incitement to violence, which violence is stochastically more likely to cause assassination attempts.
And the answer is clear cut and it's what the democrats are labeling trump and his allies.
Here is the problem with your logic, though.
If there were an island named TRUTH, "Kamala is a communist" would be 1000 kilometers offshore, "Trump is a Nazi" would be 500 kilometers offshore, "Trump is a fascist" would be 100 kilometers offshore, "Trump often employs the rhetoric of fascism" would be on the shore, and "Trump is an authoritarian" would be squarely in the middle of the island.
Here is the problem with your logic, though.
If there were an island named TRUTH, "Kamala is a communist" would be 1000 kilometers offshore, "Trump is a Nazi" would be 500 kilometers offshore, "Trump is a fascist" would be 100 kilometers offshore, "Trump often employs the rhetoric of fascism" would be on the shore, and "Trump is an authoritarian" would be squarely in the middle of the island.
Topic was, by iirc thinman: lol at republican decrying that calling Trump a fascist is incitement to violence, they call Kamala a communist.
My argument was calling Trump a fascist incites exceptionally more violence than calling Kamala a communist. Notice how that is completly orthogonal to how much the label is correct.
Even if trump was 100% a fascist under all definitions, calling him such would incite violence, same as calling a convicted pedo a pedo 24/7 on national television would increase the chances he gets attacked in the streets.
While calling a democrat a socialist or a communist doesn't incite violence, (whether the label is true or not), which is why Bernie and AOC afaik didn't have attempts on their lives.
///
Then we can agree or disagree with how proper the labels about trump are, i completly disagree with authoritarian and fascist given he had the opportunity to use massive emergency powers against his enemies during covid, and during the "summer of love", and he didn't, proving beyond any reasonable doubt he absolutely isn't even vaguely authoritarian, actually he is far less authoritarian than most politicians with executive powers in the first world are or were.
Dramatically less than most, in the most important test for that since ww2 (covid management).
But not only that, he didn't even direct the DoJ against his enemies as he could have easily done.
But again, even if Trump was actually authoritarian (like say Bukele or Duterte or Boris Johnson or Whitmer), calling him a fascist would incite violence against him.
In fact Whitmer had an attempt on her after heavy rethoric was used to describe her as a fascist (which she squarely was wrt covid management).
Here is the problem with your logic, though.
If there were an island named TRUTH, "Kamala is a communist" would be 1000 kilometers offshore, "Trump is a Nazi" would be 500 kilometers offshore, "Trump is a fascist" would be 100 kilometers offshore, "Trump often employs the rhetoric of fascism" would be on the shore, and "Trump is an authoritarian" would be squarely in the middle of the island.
I'm a fan of this, I really don't know what to call it.. Metaphor? It's not really, though. It's some sort of illustrative turn of phrase, but I don't know what it's called.
As an aside, I wanted to say "allustrative", in the sense of "alluding to something" but then googled it and discovered that is not actually a real word, so "illustrative" will have to do.
Btw Rococo you can say that if trump is close enough to be a fascist, consequences be damned if calling him that on all democrat-leaning media 24/7, automatically and predicatably, stochastically significantly increases the chances people will try to murder him.
But you have to own those consequences morally, can't dodge the fact that those consequences , objectively, exist. Nor can counter "well Kamala is at risk the same because they call her a communist", because that would be false.
I'm a fan of this, I really don't know what to call it.. Metaphor? It's not really, though. It's some sort of illustrative turn of phrase, but I don't know what it's called.
As an aside, I wanted to say "allustrative", in the sense of "alluding to something" but then googled it and discovered that is not actually a real word, so "illustrative" will have to do.
Allegory
My argument was calling Trump a fascist incites exceptionally more violence than calling Kamala a communist. Notice how that is completly orthogonal to how much the label is correct.
Even if trump was 100% a fascist under all definitions, calling him such would incite violence, same as calling a convicted pedo a pedo 24/7 on national television would increase the chances he gets attacked in the streets.
This is exactly the sort of bullshit from you that drives people insane. Sure, the bolded may be true, but in that scenario, Trump would bear 100% of the responsibility for the increased security risk and the people calling him a fascist would bear 0% of the responsibility. Indeed, in that scenario, it would be civic malpractice for people not to highlight the fact that Trump was a fascist.
This is exactly the sort of bullshit from you that drives people insane. Sure, the bolded may be true, but in that scenario, Trump would bear 100% of the responsibility for the increased security risk and the people calling him a fascist would bear 0% of the responsibility. Indeed, in that scenario, it would be civic malpractice for people not to highlight the fact that Trump was a fascist.
Sure, just own the consequences though. Don't deny nor claim, like thinman did, that Kamala is at risk the same because republicans call her a communist.
That was my argument which you seem to agree with.
Btw Rococo you can say that if trump is close enough to be a fascist, consequences be damned if calling him that on all democrat-leaning media 24/7, automatically and predicatably, stochastically significantly increases the chances people will try to murder him.
But you have to own those consequences morally, can't dodge the fact that those consequences , objectively, exist. Nor can counter "well Kamala is at risk the same because they call her a communist", because that would be false.
Your constant use of the words stochastic and orthogonal isn't having the desired effect on me, and I doubt it is having the desired effect on anyone here.
Your constant use of the words stochastic and orthogonal isn't having the desired effect on me, and I doubt it is having the desired effect on anyone here.
I use orthogonal because it's the proper word to use, instead of "it has nothing to do with".
I use stochastic to mock the left attempt to talk about stochastic terrorism when it's republicans talking about stuff, while they do exactly the same with their enemies.
Sure, just own the consequences though. Don't deny nor claim, like thinman did, that Kamala is at risk the same because republicans call her a communist.
That was my argument which you seem to agree with.
Were you this worked up when Republican nutjobs were saying that HRC was the head of a pedophile ring?
Were you this worked up when Republican nutjobs were saying that HRC was the head of a pedophile ring?
Not here, i think i got banned for short amount of times repeatedly during those elections and i gave up.
Not sure what you think my position is, did i write that democrats shouldn't call Trump an authoritarian or a fascist or a nazi? i think it's silly and not working but if they think they gain politically by doing that for sure they should do that.
Just don't claim false things like thinman did.
"Orthogonal", as I'm sure you know, is a generalisation of "perpendicular". It's a fairly specific mathematical term, but what makes it somewhat interesting is the fact it's a generalisation. Regardless, unless you're mathematician, you probably shouldn't be using it.
Especially when shorter words are available. But then some people choose words to impress rather than to communicate well.
Not here, i think i got banned for short amount of times repeatedly during those elections and i gave up.
Are you saying that you got banned somewhere on the internet for complaining about people calling HRC a pedophile? I can't imagine what sort of internet toilet you must have been swirling around back in 2016 for that to have been a bannable offense.
I can.
