Buffarukus
-
Posts
1,340 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Buffarukus
-
-
On 2/27/2024 at 1:25 PM, ComradeKayAdams said:
Yes, unequivocally: the prevention of a cluster of cells from developing into a child, when intentionally done against a mother’s consent by another human, should be considered murder. This is my personal answer for what I believe to be true, in principle, as well as what I think should be true legally. But once again…intent can often be hard to prove in a court of law, so I would expect most successful charges to end up less punitive than murder charges…especially when the mother isn’t visibly pregnant.
You seem to be looking for a “2+2=4” type of answer on this general topic, Buffarukus, but all that I can offer you is a “wave-particle duality of light” type of answer. Let me try explaining myself this way…
1. A scientific perspective: Human life begins at conception.
2. A philosophical perspective: Human life begins at the first sign of brain activity (~8 weeks into pregnancy).
3. An ideal legal perspective: Human life begins whenever the mother says it does, up to the point of birth.
4. A practical/social contract perspective: Human life begins somewhere in the second trimester, with certain agreed-upon exceptions (essentially the Roe v. Wade standard…but preferably the general European standard of up to 15 weeks or with approvals from medical professionals).
5. A private/personal perspective: Life begins at the nebulous gestational limit where I could no longer live with myself for having had the abortion.
I believe all the aforementioned to be true, just like I believe light is both a fundamental particle and a wave. How you analytically treat light depends on the particular circumstances in which you make observations of the light. Similarly, how we approach the definition of human life depends on our frame of reference, with each frame of reference valid in its own domain of inquiry.
Let’s try working with another analogy: veganism. I believe it is unethical to treat sentient life like food, unless it’s done out of genuine necessity. Does that mean I think meat consumption should be made illegal? NO!! It is my job, as a vegan activist, to persuade you to willingly choose not to eat meat using whatever perspective (animal rights, environmentalism, healthy diet, etc.) I feel is compelling. I fully understand that eating animal meat is inherently different than, say, cannibalism.
I feel the same way about abortion. I can persuade other women to reconsider it: maybe I could tell them about their adoption options, mention examples of successful adults who were almost aborted, or even show them graphic images of aborted fetuses. It is NOT my right, however, to use the legal system to physically force nine months of pregnancy and childbirth on another woman…especially when I don’t know her physical, emotional, financial, career, or family circumstances. The question of life is inherently less clear for a fetus than, say, a crawling toddler.
I’m sorry if my responses aren’t helpful. If you’re still uncomfortable with dualities, then try considering this more pragmatic point of view: women important to you in your personal life, encountering situations in which they might resort to seeking out dangerous “back-alley abortions.” How do these thought experiments affect your public policy stances? Because as you probably know by now, we women can be extraordinarily willful…
I get your points with duality but frame of reference could also be simply how some people rationalize things they dont want to face. It seems to have little to do with evidence from signs of life and more to do with how people want to perceive what they condone. Thats not how most things work and why we have laws to begin with.
Ill explain.
Your example of a meat eater. One can say animals have no souls and are objects on this planet primarily for man. A gift to use at will. Unless you know the creator/reason animals exist noone can disprove that thought. The point is not whos right or wrong in that debate but how it becomes much easier to look past moral issues like slaughter and mistreatment when a person maintains that frame of mind. You say you would not want a law in place for meat eaters but i think that you agree with laws and oversight for animals being humanly treated and respected before their lives are sacrificed to create the meat. I personally dont think there are enough of them to protect that cause.
Like i said im libertarian on the subject but do so knowing that abortion is now promoted far past the "safe and rare" limits. Thats the frame of reference pro abortion has taken up. A last resort to save women from what you mention is only part of a story. The other side is extremely irresponsable/ vindictive/ and self serving part in humanity. It can capitalize on women in need for monetary reasons as well. At a certain point should we not try to make a distinction between what most see as understandable examples and the others that exist? How do we do that if not for laws/exceptions/ or limits. A do what you want mentality when it comes to human life at its infancy should be given alot more respect then absolute trust and advocation for all procedures all the time as "none of our buisness".
Who speaks for those who have no voice? Animal or fetus? How does civilized society promote more of your outlook and use? The way it always has. laws that are hopefully built on logic that exclude those who wish to proceed recklessly. If not, then we should all mind our own buisness on almost everything we are not directly involved in. I have a belief in my right to protect myself and family but there are plenty of laws that govern what limits constitue that human right.
The only place we really disagree is in how we perceive the intentions of everyone involved. Thats the duality. the nature that people are capable of dark things is my perception. Its not always the empathetic best case scenario that advocates seem to use all the time as broad reasoning. If my outlook is true, and human history is full of examples showing it, then there has to be some form of check and balance. even more carefully when dealing with the defensless. You see that as a infringment on a god given right and i see it as a way to hold a basic standard if its necessary.
Either way it was nice to discuss on this level. It deserves it.
-
1
-
-
On 2/26/2024 at 8:10 AM, ComradeKayAdams said:
Ok, there’s a lot here, but I’ll try to address it all (WARNING: likely gonna be super long)…
Intent in criminal cases: It’s probably not a good use of our time to analyze every esoteric criminal scenario involving a pregnant woman. Let’s leave that up to prosecutors and defenders to prove or disprove intent. Suffice to say, I think the concept of a fetus potentially having “living person” status in criminal court cases is perfectly valid because, among many other examples, it serves as a deterrent for angry fathers physically assaulting pregnant mothers in order to avoid fatherhood.
Father’s rights: While I do empathize greatly with all potential fathers who want to become a parent when the potential mother does not, those who must biologically take on the entire physical burden of pregnancy should also have the entire benefit of choice. I would advise all men to avoid these situations as best as they can by improving communication with their partners and also by elevating their character standards during the partner selection process.
Abortion debate: For what it’s worth, I am privately much more on the pro-life spectrum, yet fully in support of legal abortion up to birth as a PUBLIC POLICY. Make sure you understand my distinction. I’m also very much open to second-trimester compromises if the exception-granting process is well-articulated in the abortion legislation. My full reasoning, in a hopefully easy-to-read outline form…
1. The rape exception: No victim of rape, at any point of the pregnancy, should ever be forced against her will to give birth to the rapist’s baby. Arguing otherwise is sociopathic and reveals a gross ignorance of what rape trauma fully entails. And for the sake of logical consistency, the obvious corollary to this belief is that a fetus therefore inherently falls into a category of “maybe not quite a person” because we would never otherwise allow a person to determine the life or death of another if it’s not a situation of self-defense (capital punishment debate notwithstanding).
2. Exception-granting dilemmas: I trust the medical professional community to evaluate abortion exceptions way more than I do the legal system. This is effectively the policy standard of many European countries, where an official note from a doctor or a therapist is sufficient qualification. By circumventing the often arduous and broken American legal system, legally unrestricted abortion access essentially expedites quality service of what is a major medical procedure and prioritizes the mother’s health.
And it’s easy to imagine how legal requirements might lead to situations ranging from prohibitive to life-threatening. Abortion doctors will want to avoid risks of criminal prosecution and bankrupting-inducing legal challenges due to their own diagnoses (physical health of the mother, ectopic pregnancies, fetal abnormalities, fetal viability, miscarriages, dilation/curettage procedures, dilation/evacuation procedures, etc.). In cases of rape and i n c e s t, sometimes women and girls must also deal with intimidation from partners or family members, public shaming, prosecutorial red tape, and lengthy trials (in addition to all the emotional trauma) if the legal system gets involved. While it’s highly preferable that these victims charge their culprits with a crime, they also shouldn’t be forced to do so.
3. Other valid exceptions: There are numerous ones outside Trump’s big 3 (rape, i n c e s t, life of mother) that politicians commonly omit from political conversations or haphazardly address in legislation language. Lengthy abortion waiting lists, circumstances of insufficient contraceptive access, cryptic pregnancies from irregular periods or amenorrhea, and mental health crises of the mother are among the ones that I feel demand equally serious consideration.
4. Statistical reality: ~90% of all abortions are performed during the first trimester, ~96% are performed by Trump’s proposed deadline of 16 weeks, and virtually all of the remaining ~4% of cases qualify for any of the exceptions I’ve already mentioned above. So it’s blatant pro-life propaganda whenever someone claims the existence of an American scourge of “YOLO…whatevs!” jezebels whimsically having late-term abortions.
5. Political mendacity: Conservatives insisted that five decades of judicial precedent wouldn’t be overturned, but then Roe v. Wade was overturned and celebrated. They’ve argued that abortion should be a decision left up to the states, and now they’re pushing a federal ban. Trump reneges on his public statements that female abortion seekers should face “some form of criminal punishment,” but then he glad-hands with far-right donors and creepy Christian nationalists like Mike Johnson. Since Trump is not legally bound to his speciously “centrist” legislation proposal on the campaign trail, Democrats and independents should not trust him to handle this topic in good faith.
6. Moral prioritization hierarchies: I don’t see conservatives too concerned about, say, “welfare babies” or school shooting victims or Gazan children or any fetus, for that matter, immediately after birth. At a very primitive and subconscious level, the pro-life movement is about the control of female sexual autonomy and not about any principled respect for innocent life. People of my ilk, meanwhile, prioritize mothers and the autonomously living.
A well thought out reasoning. Thanks for taking the time to articulate. I agree with most of what you wrote. Seems relatively rational, makes good points and just has a leftist slant in spots. overall there isnt alot anyone who isnt following a ideology of life at conception can truley think is extreme.
Warning...equally as long.
I find this argument interesting because it is easy to flip perspectives and ideology along with it. Both sides take on the others attributes. The right wants to protect the innocent and the left is saying "dont tread on me". move a circumstance or two and suddenly they are back to form. The question i posed does just that because it shifts the view on who is the victim.
Your moral prioritization point for example. You say republicans dont care after they leave the womb. The left doesnt care before. How many stories from children are told of a beginning where mothers who were convinced by pro life/concervative groups to change their mind? Did the right save the lives of people that the left did not consider to have a life in the first place? Mitigated to a clump of cells that could be destroyed at will before a word of their story, their success, could be heard? If fetuses are looked at as living beings does abortion now exceed gaza atrocities and many others the left care about?
those stories exist but we rarely hear them. The left controls the culture so only stories of how pro life hurts society are repeated. lets be honest, theres no logical evidence that the left will conceed that a fetus has life. Heartbeat, brain activity, pain receptors. I dont think they want any of those basic factors that represent life in the narrative. its much easier to just to say "if its in the mother its not alive" even if it really makes no sense in any other context.
im playing devils advocate for the most part. Your point on 5 could be equally told about the "safe and rare" becoming far different over time. Sure you pointed the left extreme is not utilized much but It was advocated for under the same umbrella. Conservatives had the exact same view you have now. One could argue if one extreme was not so readily accepted and normalized the other would also be universally shunned as extreme. Pendulum swings both direction and now i think moderates are hoping both figure out a compromise.
So for absolute clarity ill ask again.
If a cluster of cells is prevented from developing into a child against the mothers consent. Should that be considered murder? " Unequivocally yes?"
Without using intent or courtroom stances. Is that your personal answer? I think the only reason we would have to go in depth into criminal scenerios is to maintain the lefts view. Otherwise it is extremely straight forward. That suggests a fallacy to me.
-
1
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:
I’m not a legal expert, but I assume intent is everything. If intent can be proven in a court of law, then case resolution is typically a fast formality. If you can prove the assailant intended to terminate the fetus and that the mother intended to carry the fetus to birth, then I believe that crime is considered unequivocally murder. And if you’re asking me whether I personally agree with that logic, then my answer is “yes.”
Now if you’re asking me whether I believe a mother’s intent to give birth is the only factor that should bestow a fetus “life” status, in the legal (i.e., not scientific or philosophical) sense of the word, then my answer is also “yes.” Stated another way, I do support legal abortion theoretically up to birth.
You explicitly said you’re not looking for a debate, so I won’t go any further. I’ve defended my abortion stance a few times before in this forum, however, and will do it again if anyone wants me to do so? It’s an important topic and one that is unfortunately very poorly debated here.
I respect that opinion even if I dont see alot of logic in it. Intent can be fluid and change over time. If a attacker ends the fetus of a woman who has gone to a clinic and thinking about abortion, is it Murder? If a father who is ecstatic about conception and fully intends to take care of the child outside of a relationship? His intent is not even concidered? Of coarse not. All i know is Intent can get very messy which is why i was curious if it mattered more then when the "women choice" side concider life to exist in the first place. It seems it is the most important thing in the ideology if its considered a murder charge before its considered a life.
So it seems the presumption of human life all falls to one person and how they feel at the moment under a time table of when it exits a womans body. The second after it absolutely exists to everyone (including yourself) regardless of intent or any other factor.
Seems a bit primitive to me. Especially since induced or C section can artificially create it on a given date. So theroetically life can be created or delayed with a doctors schedule.
supporting abortion to the point of birth (even theoretically) is even more perplexing. That means a child who could absolutely survive and go on to live a productive life if given the proper care and family is still (not alive) because not ending it is a afront to womens rights. That one is extreme as the christian right contracetive bans imo.
Im in the middle. Humanity needs to come to a consensus of when a ball of cells developes whatever we determine is a undeniable attribute of life and that can be used to set laws. But at the end of the day im a libertarian on the issue. The choices people make in that regard is for them to live with, not me. But i find those adament on each side to have interesting takes.
Just trying to pose some arguments that arent as straight forward as many try to make the topic.
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, EasternOHBillsFan said:
Unless it's guns... then of course NOBODY in the GOP cares about mass shootings and/or school shootings.
I dont think anyone on the GOP side has any problem with enforcing much stricter gun laws on anyone who obtains or carries a gun illegally. What would that do to mass shootings and gun deaths? Seems the majority are committed by people with long violent records and caught carrying numerous times. Yet those people are in revolving doors that inevitably end up with lives taken...then ignored.
Yet there is only talk of removing "types of guns" and restriction of law abiding carriers.
Its pretty hypocritical that is not the MAIN TOPIC of conversation. People should be terrified to illegally carry and that simply not the case. Hell they dont even call mass shooting by that name unless it meets specific cryteria that focuses on democrat talking points.
-
1
-
-
On 4/24/2023 at 6:25 PM, ComradeKayAdams said:
5. Pro-lifers can’t seem to articulate their arguments without invoking superstitious justifications.
Im no devout pro lifer but ive asked this question before and never gotten a answer.
If someone attacks a pregnant woman with the intent to kill her fetus and is successful, is the charge simply physical assault? If yes, does this not set a dangerous precident for people who wish to skirt responsability for 18+ years?
If no...its murder. That says fetuses are living individuals.
If yes..then womens INTENT on conceiving is the only standard for a fetus having a life.
Not trying to debate just get a answer from a angle other then the normal left right positions.
-
1
-
-
Just now, BillStime said:
Long story short: you got
p
And you got a sentace and meme. Lol.
-
2
-
-
34 minutes ago, BillStime said:
Can you highlight the peace negotiations offered by your keeper Putin?I like the imbacilic edit down to one sentace to simplify my stance. Id expect nothing less from you.
So highlight. Which of the stories would you like to denounce as propaganda or write a sentance and meme? How bout the one where boris johnson nix peace talks? The one that russia wants guarantees ukraine will never be entered into NATO before it attempts a peace talk. Or i can cut and paste a twitter rando that "knows stuff" like you do for facts.
I dont know if you know this but we are in america with american media. Id think the citizens who are paying for the war across the globe would be let in on what OUR TERMS would be. Especially as any russian info is pretty scarce anyways.
you seem really close with joe. Everyone on the board had alot of taxes taken out last couple years for this war. whats the plan to end this and keep Ukrainians alive? Fill us in.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:
My basement has some occasional mice, bats and snakes. The snakes eat the mice and we catch the mice too. The bats are mellow and cause no problems. They leave in the spring. We don't take boarders.
Stalin starved millions of Ukrainians to death. They know what they're fighting for.
Then why are they forcing military aged men to fight? Prying them off of busses in front of their children. Why are they suspending elections so people cant choose a leader that may have a different way? Why are they stopping journalists from telling their stories..its all a heroic fight against evil right? What are they scared of? Why are their leaders caught with US funds that every penny should be used to fight against the utter destruction and starvation you speak?
But most importantly..why isnt it even whispered what it would take to end it.
Ever think the ultimate goal os not Ukraine at all. Its drawing america into finacing a forever war (which we love). Depleting our treasury and our military to a point where a enemy can attack a severly weakend country that is already divided and half of it is cheering its own Destruction as the real putin puppets? No. Not at all?
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:
and yet you'll still vote for trump...
Sure. The Poles just massively increased defense spending cuz they didn't have anything better to spend money on. What makes you think this statement is true when NATO is definitely concerned? You just know better? How?
btw, "non ethnic provinces" is pretty specific. Which currently independent provinces do you intend to give away to Putin?
We had this discussion awhile ago. Its hard to say which to "give away" since there has been absolutely no talk of peace negotiations from this administrarion and your comfortable recliner. We dont know if its a small province or hell even just a promise that nato to stay away from russias front door.. not that our treaties mean much if you know history. So its hypothetical.
Whats for certain is your position. Thousands of more young Ukrainians WILL die in this war. So how many more of them do YOU wish to sacrifice before you even inquire what peace costs. How much more tax money do we spend to watch? How many more stories of men being dragged away from their families and FORCED to fight are enough? How many stories of corruption of millions of US dollars lost to oligarchs bank accounts? And again, which of your family will you be willing to send when inevitably russia who has millions of more troops runs out of Ukrainians?
Land can always be regained in the future. Lives can not. Seeing as russia has gone to great lengths to avoid conflict with nato..even as nordstream was destroyed, even as direct nato intervention has obviously been added to ukrainian support, kinda tells me they are not interested in Poland or starting any other world wars any time soon.
-
2
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, B-Man said:
A BillStime favorite.
Jay lenno is leader of the boogaloos?
-
6 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:
Superbowl had black national anthem. I think that is anti white, it sure is not pro America.
Is that some proof on a war against white America?
Well i guess Its a war on hispanics, asian americans, indians, middle easterner on and on. Its discrimitory not to get full anthem representation for all people and cultures that do not want to be included in a single unified anthem.
Hopefully the NFL realizes how bigoted it is and starts the opening ceremony at the crack of dawn to include all anthems from every background since we are now just a bunch of individual groups who happen to live in proximity to one another.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, L Ron Burgundy said:
We're on the brink of war? Stop main-lining newsmax. Russia is reeling and zero Americans will lose their lives. You see nothing because people your age have no clue how to consume news. Biden passed an infrastructure bill , the chips act, the inflation reduction act, and more.
I dont think Joe has done great though. I just know the alternative is an unmitigated disaster and clown show. Lead by the most corrupt politician elected in our country. One who is manipulated by simple compliments. Just as senile as Joe and half as intelligent. And Joe was never Einstein.
You want it both ways. Stop main lining news max yet you know russia is reeling. Where is this info? What are you main lining? How bout iran? Are they reeling? Seem like they are a bit emboldened as of late.
Id say we are alot more on the brink with three threats directly attacking us or allies then any time trump was in office. Hell we have texas saying enough while biden is opposing them defending thier own border. We might be on the brink of CIVIL WAR.
All this chaos is normalized because 'you know" the alternative is a unmitigated clown show. Because biden passed a bunch of huge bills that noone can honestly say have benefitted from...hes done better. Ill believe it when i see it but as of now...cost, crime, housing, war, immigration. Every bit of it is far worse now, then its ever been.
you guys never give any real world examples on how life was so much worse. He SAID stuff. The media Told me things. Hes ACCUSED of. How about policy? You know real tangible things that effected your life and not opinion.
-
14 minutes ago, Doc said:
They're just whining and crying because no State will be allowed to keep Trump off the ballot after SCOTUS rules shortly in his favor, probably unanimously.
This month they are mad that republicans wont let them build a wall and they cant remove the top political rival from voters choice.
Not a single thought that this all is a non issue with good policy from a competent administration. Not one. instead flail around on pure desperation tactics and hope for the best.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, BillStime said:
You are forgetting about all the events and moves Trump made leading up to and after Jan 6.
Trump doesn’t belong anywhere near the White House.
And last:
its a bit unsettling to know a terrorist who plots and executes a plan to "destroy democracy and this country" can just walk around freely for 4 years.
im sure the russians and iranians are very pleased. Try to destroy america and they will only be judged by left wing media pundits for years. Just dont run in the general election. Lol.
-
3 minutes ago, BillStime said:
Wait - you think the United States should sweep what happened on January 6 under the rug?What happened on January 6th was TRUMP’S TACTIC.
JFC there are so many idiots here.
Lol. Hundreds tracked down and arrested.
Impeachment proceeded against the man. Which lost
A full "hearing" showing it all on prime time television.
Years go by not a charge brought. just cnn and your threads crying about it nonstop.
Which part of this 4 years were "swept under the rug"? Where were the formal charges all this time? Right.
Proceed with your manufactured outrage over it. Everyone else sees it for what it was.
4 minutes ago, BillStime said:Meanwhile - you want to see a fkn tactic?
The Trump family received $2 BILLION dollars and you freaks gotta pathetic Biden Corruption thread for $20 fkn million?
pathetic
Not under any dillusion the people in politics are corrupt.
Look at ALL their stock portfolios alone. Its clear.
What of it?
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, BillStime said:
Which tactic?
And polls? RED WAVE will never stop haunting you…
Removing the leading canidate from the ballot?
Nicki haley still lost the primary to "noone"
Having a clearly biased jan 6th trial on national tv that did nothing to change anyones mind.
Changing NY statute of limitations.
Waiting until election season to file charges that were obviously held back because everyone knows they are interested in a media smear campaign for the headlines, not justice.
Win or lose...this is the most pathetic way to beat a political opponent. A "low bar" one as you put it.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, BillStime said:
The bar couldn’t be any lower for GOP leadership. They are simply not intelligent.Now the electorate (R&D) - that’s an entirely different story.
And yet they have to resort to such desperate tactics to beat this "low bar" and are losing in the polls?
It should tell you somthing
But it wont.
-
19 hours ago, daz28 said:
Mess with the bull you get the horns. It seems that's the only way some people learn. I try to be reasonable, and allow others the attempt to be the same.
Just curious what you think is center/left? I concider myself center left, and think the right fights for more of those principals today then the left.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:
we all know it's a problem. of course (why do kids say that so often). So let's fix it. make true asylum seekers eligible quickly and throw the rest out. It's not rocket surgery...oh, and make less asylum seekers available by fixing the scumhole they are forced to leave.
If we all knew that why was it ignored so long and why are democrats not assisting texas in fixing it. They certainly didnt mind undermining republicans when it came to giving sanctuary ect ect. Now absolutely nothing can be done unless republicans approve? Sure.
This goes on every election cycle. Both sides go out of their way to make each other look bad and the citizens pay the price. Remember when pelosi held back covid checks from people THEY said could not work as a bargaining chip to get their guy elected. I do. Same as it ever was. New election.
-
7 hours ago, ChiGoose said:
Yes. Multiple GOP officials have said they won’t do a border deal because they don’t want to do something that might make the Dems look good before the election.
The GOP wants the border to be a disaster because it benefits them politically and they think their voters are ignorant enough to think otherwise even when they admit publicly.
You missed my point. The boarder has been a disaster since biden stepped in. The dems suddenly want to fix it during a election cycle the same way the republicans dont. Both are political yet only one side you want acknowledged as such.
The difference. Which one do you think will truley address it when the election is over? The one that ignored it and condoned it or the one who has been beating the drum its a issue. So its ignorant to think that biden isnt going right back to buisness as usual open boarder millions more in as soon as he wins and republicans arent going to address it...under screams of racism.
Need Proof? Biden can aid texas barriers, not prevent them. He can work on a deal with mexico to hold the line, mass deport those who have abused amnesty ect ect ect. Needs zero evil republican votes for actions to take place. Yet does nothing. Numerous times this administration has said illigal immigration is a great thing. So im not sure why posters arent cheering on the republicans decision.
-
Just now, Doc said:
Not really. They don't care because they know they have black people in the bag. At least they did.
And the cycle likely won't be over until the border gets secured. This isn't an issue that's going away. And Joke won't be applauding Texas while they're defying his corrupt Admin.
I agree. Same with covid and crime. They advocate it until it effects enough the polls start dipping then when damage is done they say its not a problem we all see/ blame republicans. and move on to the next outrage.
Rinse and repeat.
Didnt you know Illegal immigration is the republicans fault! Its obvious they dont care! The thread told me this.
-
Just now, Doc said:
They told illegals to come and they'd be allowed in once Joke became President. They were counting on no one noticing/caring because they flew illegals all over the country under cover of darkness. But once DeSantis and Abbott started sending them to blue states/cities (called a "stunt" initially) and it started to take a toll on them, the problem began to get everyone's attention. To the point that polls began to reflect it, and it's only then that they decided they needed to at least pay lip service to it. But as you can see by their actions in Texas, they still won't do anything about it.
The purpose was to increase Dem voters. If you've noticed, many cities are trying to allow illegals to vote. But what they want is to eventually grant citizenship to them.
You would think after illegals were displacing poor black peoples resources it would at least raise a eyebrow. When they showed up to local meeting expressing anger. Nope. When their OWN LEADERS said it was a problem. Nothing to see here. When the first women being assaulted happened. All just collateral damage for a overall goal of i want to pretend to be more virtuous then anyone who notices it as a problem.
What grabs their attention. Potentially losing power. That and that alone is why any of them care now. As soon as the cycle is over they will go back to condemning anyone who brings up the topic as a racist white nationalist and could care less if biden goes right back to ignoring it all.
I patiently wait for biden to applaud texas for stepping up and dealing with the problem he suddenly cares about and offer support for the efforts that the republicans are preventing.
-
4 hours ago, ChiGoose said:
Ok, since it’s obvious that the GOP doesn’t want to solve the border crisis and they admit that they won’t do it for political reasons, yet so many here seem to believe both that the Dems want the border crisis and that the issue hurts them:
What is the alleged Dem theory of the case here? Get more immigrants in so that people like Dems less?
come on, they admit they wont do it for political reasons?
so let me get this straight. 3 straight years of there is no problem. If there is, its a good thing! The more the merrier! Destroying barricades texas is setting up and taking them to court to do so. Liberal sanctuaries screaming stop, we cant take anymore. Its all republicans fault with ZERO response from the federal level. Trillions of dollars in deals during those 3 plus years.
But as soon as its election time rolls around now its "Republicans wont work with us" ..."won’t do it for political reasons" falls strictly on one side?
Letting texas defend the boarder would at least pretend democrats are finally interested in the problem..they cant even do that.
So explain how this deal isnt political to the dems to get polls up on the issue That has been ignored and wont go back to that once the ballots are counted? ITS ALL POLITICAL. Only one has already proven to advocate and ignore it when in power.
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, Justice said:
Yeah I gotta reply to myself.8 They all know what a infidel is though hmm
Ill ask a question. Maybe its been answered in the many pages of the thread.
Why does it seem that all the surrounding muslim nations do not seem to support Palestine other then militarily? Why arent refugees easily able to seek refuge in their territory? Regardless of the land dispute i dont think Israel is against them recieving outside support to build up their schools and economy to become prosperous? Am i wrong?
From my very nieve view it seems that Palestine is used as a proxy against the west. The only interest is support towards that end and not much more. There are some mega wealthy muslim nations that i think could easily, at the very least, improve the living standards of its citizens.
Maybe Israel blocks money for schools and buisnesses or quality of life. If true then i certainly agree its a open air prison. If not then people need to ask themselves who really is condoning Palestinian suffering. Blaming solely the people that are their sworn enemies, and not the surrounding nations that are "alies" doesnt seem very logical.
I never hear that argument made.
-
1
-
1
-
Tik Tok
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Havent read the bill but i watch alot of pundits that are skeptical of government.
Supposedly this is not a tik tok ban at all. It is a bill so that 4 hostile states alone cannot have large investments in websites or services that operate in the US. China, russia, north korea, iran.
If tik tok divests from chinese interests it can operate as it does today with no changes. Its refusing.
Theory is the reason they are going after it now is because it is the prime website used promoting the gaza stance. Bipartisan agreement is in backing Israel so bipartisan agreement in this bill.
They read specific wording to back the claim that this bill is highly focused on specifics so doesnt sound like broad overreach for the most part so far.