US Election 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
greg0205 said:
^ Adorable.

Tulsi is going to do what gets Tulsi clicks and invites onto cable shows.

Endorsing Bernie is half a news cycle. A third party run is Tulsi on Carlson and Hannity 'till November, with the added bonus of drawing votes away from the Dem nominee.
Click to expand...
I quite agree with you. She should be prevented from running as Bernie Sanders deserves all the support.
 
NarrowBandFtw said:
if you do x, then you will experience y

it is that simple
Click to expand...
If you ban abortions then you will experience a loss of credibility in the eyes of a large proportion of the population and unleash greater political division in the country.

Did I just threaten the supreme court or did I illuminate then to the consequences of their potential decision?
 
AlmightyBender said:
If you ban abortions then you will experience a loss of credibility in the eyes of a large proportion of the population and unleash greater political division in the country.

Did I just threaten the supreme court or did I illuminate then to the consequences of their potential decision?
Click to expand...

Major strawman alert. No-one in the supreme court is calling for a federal abortion ban.

The supreme court decision that they are looking at is whether the federal government should force state governments to allow abortions of some sort or not. In other words, does the constitution contain the provisions that the federal government should protect a "right to abortion".

Personally, even if the Roe V wade is overturned, I think the overton window on abortions has shifted substantially that most people will allow some form of abortion. Which means that if it results in "a loss of credibility in the eyes of a large proportion of the population", it should be very easy for the individual state lawmakers to pass common-sense abortion laws (you know to expropriate a term from from the gun control debate).
 
konfab said:
Major strawman alert. No-one in the supreme court is calling for a federal abortion ban.

The supreme court decision that they are looking at is whether the federal government should force state governments to allow abortions of some sort or not.

Personally, even if the Roe V wade is overturned, I think the overton window on Abortions has shifted substantially to allowing some form of abortion. Which means that if it results in "a loss of credibility in the eyes of a large proportion of the population", it should be very easy for the individual state lawmakers to pass common-sense abortion laws (you know to expropriate a term from from the gun control debate).
Click to expand...

This... This is not a point AB was making.

Not even close.

You understand the concept of an "example", yes?
 
greg0205 said:
This... This is not a point AB was making.

Not even close.

You understand the concept of an "example", yes?
Click to expand...
The context that I read it in was this:
"I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions," Schumer said, turning to look at the Supreme Court building.
Click to expand...
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/04/politics/schumer-roberts-threats-supreme-court/index.html


Now personally, I actually don't really think there is anything wrong of informing supreme court justices of the consequences of their decisions. The law applies equally to everyone, including court judges.

If a judge allows the expropriation of property without compensation, I would hope that someone in power finds a way to expropriate all that judges property without compensation.
 
konfab said:
The context that I read it in was this:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/04/politics/schumer-roberts-threats-supreme-court/index.html


Now personally, I actually don't really think there is anything wrong of informing supreme court justices of the consequences of their decisions. The law applies equally to everyone, including court judges.
Click to expand...

Sure, but it was primarily a continuation of the if/then conversation with Narrow... The one where Narrow insist if/then is always threat and AB just showed - with that example - that it isn't.

Incidentally, I think the price Chuck is hinting at is a Democratic WH, Senate and House upping the number of justices to 13, and loading the additional seats with progressive judges.
 
Temujin said:
:ROFL: 15... perhaps you should be telling young girls about importance of safe sex to avoid teenage pregnancies etc instead of ranting about your yeast infections /shrug
Click to expand...

I'm really not going to stand in the way of a deranged leftist who wants an abortion.
I would recommend sterilisation though as a preventative measure.
 
konfab said:
Major strawman alert. No-one in the supreme court is calling for a federal abortion ban.

The supreme court decision that they are looking at is whether the federal government should force state governments to allow abortions of some sort or not. In other words, does the constitution contain the provisions that the federal government should protect a "right to abortion".

Personally, even if the Roe V wade is overturned, I think the overton window on abortions has shifted substantially that most people will allow some form of abortion. Which means that if it results in "a loss of credibility in the eyes of a large proportion of the population", it should be very easy for the individual state lawmakers to pass common-sense abortion laws (you know to expropriate a term from from the gun control debate).
Click to expand...
Yeah I hear you, was just an example. You can insert issue of you choice into that slot. Gun rights, environment protection etc etc etc. The point I was trying to make was to illustrate that NBFTW's definition of a threat was inadequate, nothing more.

PS I'm still laughing at your joke dude, it was that good :)
 
Pegasus said:
I'm really not going to stand in the way of a deranged leftist who wants an abortion.
I would recommend sterilisation though as a preventative measure.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, sterilisation was one of the pillars of the nazi defence of their aryan race from "volkstod". One they implemented almost immediately after their boss became chancelor.

The others included murdering impaired children, murdering impaired adults and, you know, murdering Jews.
 
greg0205 said:
Interestingly, sterilisation was one of the pillars of the nazi defence of their aryan race from "volkstod". One they implemented almost immediately after their boss became chancelor.

The others included murdering impaired children, murdering impaired adults and, you know, murdering Jews.
Click to expand...
Just like leftists now are murdering children?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X