ChiGoose

I agree that there are crazies on all sides of all issues, however, comparing what some random loons say to a statement by the author of model legislation that had enough support to be passed into law by a legislative body seems like a false equivalence.

Given Iran's policy of supporting terrorist organizations, I'm less concerned about Iran launching a nuke at Israel than them giving a nuke or dirty bomb to terrorists.

What lawmaker, elected official or party leader is advocating for post-birth abortions? Is there proposed legislation on this? I don't doubt there are some nuts out there that want something like this, but I am skeptical that is a belief with enough support to be put into law.

It's just a distraction technique used by bad faith actors or (in this case) morons who actually don't realize they are being played. They want to pick one small thing and hammer it in order to avoid talking about all of the other aspects or the bigger picture. If you think about it, even if this theory about Ray Epps is true, it changes almost nothing. It doesn't change the fact that the president was told that the actions he wanted to take were illegal but he took them anyway. It doesn't change that they bilked their own supporters out of $200 million for a fund that actually didn't exist. It doesn't change the call to the Georgia Secretary of State asking him to put false numbers into the electoral tabulation. And the idea itself, that actually all of the violence was due to the FBI, would require that the Trump supporters at the capitol were brainless sheep. If the Bills win the Super Bowl this season (fingers crossed) and we all go to the parade, and someone at the parade is like "let's storm city hall!" Guess what every sane person is doing? Not storming city hall. Frankly, I mostly just avoid DR at this point to avoid feeding the trolls, but this whole Ray Epps thing is so idiotic, it's hard to avoid some times.

Oh, this is definitely true. We are a very car-centric culture and people in Europe have better access to public transit that mitigates the rising cost of fuel. I do not mean to say in anyway that the cost of fuel is immaterial or that we should be happy about it because it's more expensive elsewhere. I roll my eyes when I see my more liberal friends post about wanting gas prices to be higher to drive down car use because they completely ignore that this would greatly harm the poor and working class they claim to support so much. I mostly just wanted to point out that this isn't an issue singular to the US like we have high prices and everybody else is fine.

Note that I did not say that the US has the cheapest gas prices. Obviously there are countries with cheaper prices. Let's look at prices around the world: USD per Gallon: Venezuela 0.084 Libya 0.116 Iran 0.202 Syria 1.082 Algeria* 1.185 Kuwait* 1.291 Angola 1.41 Nigeria 1.577 Turkmenistan 1.621 Kazakhstan 1.66 Malaysia* 1.753 Iraq 1.943 Egypt* 1.954 Bahrain 2.009 Bolivia* 2.054 Colombia* 2.124 Haiti 2.154 Qatar* 2.183 Azerbaijan 2.227 Saudi Arabia* 2.349 Oman* 2.35 Ecuador* 2.4 Ethiopia 2.67 Tunisia 2.869 Kyrgyzstan* 3.015 Russia* 3.137 Benin* 3.495 Gabon 3.525 Bangladesh 3.597 Belarus* 3.616 Togo* 3.641 Uzbekistan 3.7 Afghanistan 3.723 Trinidad & Tobago 3.755 Cameroon* 3.787 Argentina* 3.803 Taiwan* 3.967 Maldives 4.081 Botswana 4.134 Suriname* 4.137 Burkina Faso* 4.165 Ivory Coast* 4.282 El Salvador* 4.31 Mexico* 4.317 DR Congo 4.433 Pakistan* 4.53 Brazil* 4.567 Grenada* 4.622 Burma* 4.631 Indonesia* 4.639 Japan* 4.647 United Arab Emirates* 4.658 Mali 4.725 Cuba 4.77 Bhutan 4.787 Swaziland 4.791 Sudan 4.8 Chile* 4.801 Puerto Rico* 4.847 Guyana* 4.867 Kenya* 4.868 Liberia 4.887 Vietnam* 4.913 USA* 4.915 India* 4.962 Thailand* 5.007 Guatemala* 5.049 Dominica 5.058 Malta* 5.093 Georgia* 5.103 Mozambique* 5.155 Nicaragua* 5.162 Senegal 5.185 Namibia* 5.186 Tanzania* 5.217 Guinea 5.22 Lebanon* 5.244 China* 5.307 Dominican Republic* 5.357 Lesotho* 5.371 Rwanda* 5.375 Nepal* 5.386 Australia* 5.408 Mongolia 5.417 Madagascar* 5.447 Paraguay 5.497 Turkey* 5.512 Saint Lucia* 5.533 Ghana* 5.544 Costa Rica* 5.59 Panama* 5.743 Sri Lanka* 5.773 Honduras* 5.793 Philippines* 5.829 Fiji* 5.839 South Africa* 5.847 Burundi 5.966 Cambodia* 5.986 Canada* 6.054 Poland* 6.12 Curacao* 6.192 Zambia* 6.192 Moldova* 6.229 Mauritius* 6.262 Peru* 6.286 Uganda 6.297 Sierra Leone* 6.323 South Korea* 6.33 Montenegro* 6.461 Ukraine* 6.475 Northern Macedonia* 6.543 Slovenia* 6.548 Cape Verde* 6.55 Bulgaria* 6.551 Jamaica* 6.553 Morocco 6.609 Jordan* 6.621 Serbia* 6.638 Romania* 6.643 Wallis and Futuna 6.735 Bosnia & Herz.* 6.76 Cayman Islands* 6.798 Luxembourg* 6.928 Cyprus* 6.943 Germany* 6.943 Andorra* 6.951 Bahamas 6.968 Liechtenstein 7.053 Laos* 7.062 Aruba* 7.07 Hungary* 7.084 Seychelles 7.176 Slovakia* 7.251 San Marino 7.255 Lithuania* 7.331 Malawi* 7.358 Czech Republic* 7.382 Albania 7.471 Mayotte* 7.487 Zimbabwe* 7.493 France* 7.533 Latvia* 7.563 Uruguay* 7.596 Croatia* 7.596 New Zealand* 7.671 Portugal* 7.673 Italy* 7.71 Spain* 7.743 Belgium* 7.878 Austria* 7.981 Sweden* 8.021 Singapore* 8.058 Ireland* 8.205 Estonia* 8.243 Switzerland* 8.466 United Kingdom* 8.58 Monaco 8.6 Netherlands* 8.707 Belize* 8.721 Central African Rep. 8.739 Finland* 8.825 Barbados* 8.838 Greece* 8.908 Denmark* 8.909 Israel* 9.007 Norway* 9.07 Iceland* 9.338 Hong Kong 11.448 So yeah, gas prices are higher in the US than normal, but we are far from having the most expensive gas.

Agreed. Pulling out of the JCPOA was a disaster.

I don't think I would do that if I were in their shoes unless my lawyer was with me and approved.

Something I've noticed lately with a lot of conservative proposals is that they are often based in common sense terms but do not adequately apply the proposed solutions to the nitty gritty real life details. Solutions like "the legislative branch should just legislate" ignores that, at the federal level, our legislature is hopelessly broken and unable to respond to the needs and wants of the American public. At the state level, legislatures vary wildly in both competence and willingness to actually address this situation (or make it worse). People like me who were worried about Roe being overturned were concerned that our legislative bodies would be unable or unwilling to properly address this in a way that protects people. Thankfully for my family, we live in Illinois with a governor who cares and a legislature that was smart enough to anticipate this and enact protections before the Dobbs decision. But tens of millions of Americans are not so lucky, and many states seem to be pushing laws that will make things even more difficult for people to get adequate healthcare and even proposing to eliminate exceptions for rape or *****. Another side of this is completely ignoring the confusion that even a well-crafted law can create. Law is complex, medicine is even more so. Laws about medicine that leave gray areas are already causing confusion about what doctors might or might not be liable for. Even if the law allows for the use of something like methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis, the bounty aspect of some of these laws mean that a doctor who proscribed it might end up being sued for suspicion of facilitating an abortion and have to take the time, effort, and money to defend themselves. So now we are in a situation where many doctors are not sure if they can treat their patients, or if they can, worrying they might get sued anyway. Women across the country are not sure they'll be able to get needed treatment, or may have to spends hundreds or thousand of dollars to travel to get it. And the solution being offered is simply "well, let's hope that the legislatures who we deride as corrupt and incompetent on a regular basis really step up to the plate and solve all of this for us." It's just not a convincing argument unless you ignore the reality of the situation.

No, I thought throwing away 50 years of law without keeping any guardrails would lead to a ton of problems that would harm a lot of people. Seems pretty spot on prediction, honestly.

No, no, you see, we're not allowed to look at other countries for comparison. If we don't like the current president, then everything bad is 100% their fault and anything about similar problems elsewhere is non-admissible.

And in the meantime, screw anybody who has an immune disease!

Womp womp.

Did you eat paint chips as a child?

I know you're just being a flippant ass, but yes, they will fill these prescriptions for men while denying them for women: https://news.yahoo.com/us-abortion-ruling-threatens-access-011837332.html

Post-Roe, many autoimmune patients lose access to ‘gold standard’ drug

US abortion ruling threatens access to arthritis drug Oh look, it's the incredibly predictable consequences of Dobbs.

Exclusive: Watch Uvalde school shooting video obtained by Statesman showing police response The video is incredibly difficult to watch, but I do recommend reading the article. Two screenshots that tell you all you need to know: Here's a good guy with a gun, checking out his phone with a Punisher logo wallpaper while children are murdered down the hall And here's another good guy with a gun, getting some hand sanitizer while children are murdered down the hall.

It's hard for me to imagine seeing unending evidence of corruption and a disgusting disregard for the average American and the rule of law, to only judge those on a political institution and not in my own conscience. Maybe it's easy for you. But for me, I will not judge right or wrong by what is politically popular.

It's hard to imagine that those crusading against Roe actually cared about being "pro-life" since most of them also opposed policies that would actually reduce the number of abortions (comprehensive sex ed, easy access to contraceptives) or help people support a kid so they wouldn't even have to consider it (universal healthcare, paid parental leave, child tax credit). I do not know you, so I am not accusing you of being one of these people. But something that is incredibly frustrating to me is the "pro-life" contingent that supported policies that made it harder to avoid an unwanted pregnancy, harder to manage a pregnancy, and harder to raise a child; all while supporting a singular policy that they knew (or should have known) would not end abortions, but would only make abortions less safe, and would endanger women's health and even their lives. If they truly wanted a common ground, something to make it easier to have kids, less likely for people to have abortions, they would have found a willing partner in many people like myself. Proven methods of avoiding unwanted pregnancies (unlike failed "abstinence only" policies), Pro-natalist policies to encourage kids, to give families the support they need, to ensure that a woman's healthcare needs are met. But they generally oppose such policies. It's hard to draw any conclusion other than the fact that it's not actually about stopping abortions. It's not actually about promoting life. If it were, Roe wouldn't be necessary because we would have a robust system that prevented unwanted pregnancies while making it easier for people to have kids they want. If the vocal "Pro-Life" contingent actually cared about life and actually cared about reducing abortions, Roe wouldn't be necessary. They don't want that and it tells you everything you need to know about them.

Fetterman is pretty relatable:

There already are funds, and I do donate, but that's a wholly inadequate response. It must be nice to be able to hand wave this away while people are suffering consequences of the decision you support. It also must be nice to have confidence that the same legislatures that are passing laws that cause confusion and prevent people from getting the healthcare they need will be suddenly inspired with divine knowledge on how to fix this when, in reality, they are far more likely to make things worse.

This is pretty telling. It’s almost as if some people cannot understand why someone would do something that didn’t benefit them personally. Hearings held 5 months before an election are a terrible way to influence the election. If that’s what this was all about, they would hold the hearings in September and October instead. But for people with no principles, where power is the only goal, it’s hard to understand that maybe some things are not done for personal gain. If you’re judging the hearings based on the impact to the midterms, then you’re really just telling on yourself.

Nah, just keep the guardrails of Roe and Casey in place. Also, why don't you go tell those people who have to spend money on plane tickets just to get proper care to be patient?

Twitter sues Musk after he tries backing out of $44 billion deal