ChiGoose
-
Posts
4,121 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ChiGoose
-
-
19 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said:
Aka:
"This is so correct I have no legitimate reply."
Trump was just caught accidentally telling the truth to billionaire donors, that they should donate because he'll help them. His tax plan benefitted them above all.
At least dems want them to pay their fair share.
Lying and mudslinging is all they've got because the truth contradicts them.
What a mess!
-
13 minutes ago, Roundybout said:
“Do more for their own”Like student loan forgiveness, universal healthcare, better public transit…?
Nah, tax breaks for the wealthy that explode the deficit so you can cut education and programs for the poor and working class so you can do more tax breaks for the wealthy which explodes the deficit so you can cut education and programs for the poor and working class so you can do more tax breaks for the wealthy which explodes the deficit...
-
1
-
1
-
-
55 minutes ago, Roundybout said:
See Germany circa 1932-1939
Wonder what books they are burning here:
IYKYK: history doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, Doc said:
So you're saying that even if JWHO hadn't sued Dobbs, SCOTUS still would have overturned Roe?
Dear lord, you’re obtuse.
You do realize that the natural conclusion of your questioning is: let states pass unconstitutional laws and never challenge them because it might get worse, right?
Is that what you’re looking to defend here? Just letting whatever state pass whatever unconstitutional law it wants without any recourse?
-
22 minutes ago, Doc said:
Sorry but Slick's past and present are very on-topic. The Dems would have been better-served not dusting him off but obviously he's still very important to them.
Here’s a fun fact: Bill Clinton sucks and Donald Trump is a rapist. -
Wow. This thread certainly went off topic.
To bring it back to the original topic, here’s a fun and legal thing you can say:
Donald Trump is an adjudicated sexual abuser.
-
11 minutes ago, B-Man said:
Until those kids are born. Then, let them starve and suffer. That’s the GOP way! -
27 minutes ago, Doc said:
The fact remains that they were responsible for RvW being overturned. You know, those 2nd and 3rd order effects were you talking about earlier.
No they weren’t. SCOTUS was. I don’t think overturning Roe was even part of the certified question that SCOTUS was asked to address.
It’s such a weird and illogical way to look at this. Just trying every trick to excuse the people actually responsible because it makes your side look bad.
State passes unconstitutional law
Petitioner: hey! That’s unconstitutional
SCOTUS: we are changing the constitution to allow things way beyond the law we were asked to look at
Internet geniuses: this is the petitioner’s fault.
-
2
-
-
20 minutes ago, Doc said:
You think the JWHO regrets their decision? Or does the political fallout make it worth it?
Can’t blame them here. They challenged a law that directly contradicted the Constitution as held by SCOTUS. SCOTUS then decided to change the rules on them.
Blaming people for challenging problematic laws instead of blaming the people who pass those laws is an interesting way to burden shift.
-
3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
By whom?
The Arizona Supreme Court says it's a valid law.
So the appeal is to ... the U.S. Supreme Court, which just told us (thank you Trump and your rushed nomination of Amy Coney Barrett) that this is an issue for the states to decide.
Fascinating how the anti-abortion rights people are now all waiting for some court, somewhere to save them from themselves.
They are the dog that caught the car.
Abortion was a good issue for the Right while Roe was in place. Now it’s a weight around their necks.
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, Pokebball said:
The bill was crafted by a dem, a repub and an independent (who was a dem the year before). It was shoved down the others throats in the 11th hour with very little knowledge of what was in the bill prior to that. Too many found to much in the bill they didn't like so they refused to support it. And I'm talking dems as well.
I'm not going to defend most in DC. Most are sorry excuses for reps that are more interested in partisanship than they are representing those of us across the country.
Biden can strengthen the border with a few strokes of his pen. Schumer can pick up HB2 and start working it. Amend it to his hearts content. Do something. He doesn't because of partisan politics.
Clowns!
Lots of excuses for the GOP here.
Would the bipartisan bill be better than the status quo? Most experts seem to think so.
Is there any chance that HB2, a solely partisan job with no bipartisan input will be signed into law? Nope.
Seems like the Senate bill should have been able to move forward. But that would have made the godking mad, so now the toadies need to bend over backwards to excuse a tremendous GOP self-own.
-
16 minutes ago, Pokebball said:
Dems control the senate though. Dems could have passed it on their own. They didn't need the repubs if all of 'em supported it. I guess we're good calling it a bipartisan refusal to pass it?
So we are left today, where I thought we were. The house passed a border bill that is collecting dust on Schumer's desk. The Senate has done nothing of any value. Nothing the dem senators collectively support. The balls in Schumer's court.
Disagree. The Dems had the GOP craft a border bill that the Dems would never support on its own in exchange for supporting democracy abroad. The GOP reneged and trashed the whole endeavor the second their godking expressed displeasure. That is not the same as one side of the House passing an extreme bill that had zero chance of success.
Back to the topic at hand, the GOP could potentially save themselves from serious problems in November and put the Dems in a really tough spot by bringing a bill to the the House floor that expands access to contraception and healthcare, emphasizes prenatal care, guarantees paid parental leave, and makes healthcare affordable.
Not only would such a bill greatly help reduce elective abortions, but it would provide a much-needed lifeline to GOP candidates.
So why won’t they do it?
-
Just now, daz28 said:
When you're born is when the government begins considering you a person. That's when your "life" begins. Before that, you are a fetus, albeit a human one. You don't have to answer any questions you're afraid to answer, and you're not controlling the discussion.
When you’re born is also when the GOP stops considering you a person.-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, Pokebball said:
You have that link to the senate border bill that is sitting on Johnson's desk? If I'm mistaken, I'd like to know.
You’re right. I totally forgot that the Senate GOP scuttled their own bill. They’re even bigger cowards than I usually think of them. -
4 minutes ago, daz28 said:
.
SOOOOO much this, but they claim it's the other side who only thinks with their feelings. LOL Like if there were a biological difference between conservatives and others, it would be the ability to think beyond step 1.
It’s just projection on their part.
Most everything is emotionally tinged on the right because if they came right out and said “we want to take your money and what you work for and give it to millionaires and billionaires,” people wouldn’t vote for it. So they stoke a culture war to scare hard-working Americans into supporting their corporate masters.
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, daz28 said:
World politics can have an effect on everyone. Try again. If anything, the argument should be that someone(depending on the person) birthing a child could have MUCH more effect on their lives, than if it were aborted. You'd think the group that hates poor people from stealing their taxes would understand that.
Don’t forget that conservatives seem incapable or unwilling of considering second and third order effects.
Imagine if abortion was banned completely in the US. You would see a black market of unregulated and likely very unsafe abortion options available to the desperate.
Now imagine you or someone you love is pregnant. Everything is going well but then suddenly, it’s a miscarriage. How does the doctor know that it wasn’t the result of a back alley abortion? How does law enforcement know? The only way is to investigate.
Better yet, they can follow in the steps of Missouri and use data from things like period tracking apps to keep tabs on women of child bearing age. A surveillance state for women.
What about someone who is pregnant but is diagnosed with cancer? Well, if their life isn’t immediately in danger, they’ll be given no choice but to let the cancer grow until it’s life threatening instead having the option to choose their future.The world in which they get their way is a totalitarian nightmare but they don’t believe or understand it because they still can’t grasp simple second order effects like fetal personhood requiring banning IVF.
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, Pokebball said:
Everyone wants these things. The difference in philosophy is how to accomplish it.
The Border deal? The GOP passed their border bill in the house. HB2 is sitting on Schumer's desk collecting dust. Dems haven't passed a border bill yet because Schumer couldn't get the support he needed in the Dem controlled senate.
The senate passed a border bill. It was basically written by a conservative and it’s sitting on Mike Johnson’s desk.
If Johnson puts the bill on the floor, it will pass and it will help the border. Which is why he won’t put it on the floor.
There are always a million reasons to say “no.” Part of being a responsible legislator is finding a way to “yes” through compromise. But compromise is anathema to the MAGA wing of the GOP, ensuring that they get basically nothing done.
And that’s even if they do actually support addressing the root causes of abortion. Which they don’t, so it’s all moot anyway. The idea that “everyone wants these” is, frankly, naive.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Pokebball said:
they'd also be probably all on board
I wish you were correct, but the GOP tends to oppose expanding healthcare, increasing access to contraceptives, and affordable childcare. There are signs however, that they are rethinking their opposition to parental leave.
It would be smart for them to revisit these policies. Dobbs is incredibly unpopular with the average American. If the GOP were open to these things, Speaker Johnson could put them on the House floor and force Dems to choose to support their stated policies or keep the issue alive for the election (not unlike how the GOP went back on their proposed border deal.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Pokebball said:
If the people who claim to oppose harming women over abortion really wanted to, they would address the root causes of harming women!
did I do that right
Well, if you ask Dems if they want to make having kids more affordable and provide better opportunities and support to people with financial difficulties while ensuring that people can get prenatal care, good parental leave, and affordable childcare, they’d probable all be on board.
Do you think the GOP would?
-
1
-
-
If the people who claim to oppose abortion really wanted to reduce abortions without harming women, they’d address the root causes of abortions.
But they never do (and often oppose proven effective methods) so it’s hard to believe them when they say that’s their goal.
-
15 minutes ago, Pokebball said:
Bail is a legal process. Again, what would you do with someone that broke the law?
If you’re implying that the natural consequence of outlawing abortion is punishing women and doctors, I agree.
In fact, the natural consequence of fetal personhood (which is gaining popularity on the right) is banning IVF and prosecuting women who have abortions and their doctors for first degree murder.
I just happen to agree with the majority of Americans that those laws are stupid and warrant fighting against.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Doc said:
What was that about Dunning-Kruger Effect again?
If a pregnant woman has signs of a miscarriage (bleeding, abdominal pain) and a good-faith effort is made to search for a fetal heart beat and none is found, one can confidently declare it's a miscarriage. The ultrasound is the evidence. Everything else is political machinations.
Hey buddy, you can be having a miscarriage while there is still a “heartbeat.”
That’s the problem with these stupid laws. If the pregnancy is nonviable or the mother is experiencing miscarriage symptoms but there is still a fetal “heartbeat,” by law they need to wait until the life of the mother is in danger.
It’s really dumb and illogical, but that’s why it’s a GOP policy.
Read like, literally any story about this coming out of Texas.
-
1
-
-
The changes the right is so upset about:
“The Mifepristone REMS Program was modified on January 3, 2023. Under the Mifepristone REMS Program:
Mifepristone must be prescribed by a health care provider that meets certain qualifications and is certified under the Mifepristone REMS Program.
In order to become certified to prescribe mifepristone, health care providers must complete a Prescriber Agreement Form.
The Patient Agreement Form must be reviewed with and signed by the patient and the health care provider, and the risks of the mifepristone treatment regimen must be fully explained to the patient before mifepristone is prescribed.
The patient must be provided with a copy of the Patient Agreement Form and mifepristone Medication Guide (FDA-approved information for patients).
Mifepristone may only be dispensed by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber, or by a certified pharmacy on a prescription issued by a certified prescriber.
To become certified to dispense mifepristone, pharmacies must complete a Pharmacy Agreement Form.
Certified pharmacies must be able to ship mifepristone using a shipping service that provides tracking information.
Certified pharmacies must ensure mifepristone is dispensed to the patient in a timely manner.”
(FDA)
-
30 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:
Silly false dichotomy. Tylenol doesn't need a script for very real medical reasons. You guys always reference science. But here your going with feeling and pr over science.
One more time. What kinda of side affects can happen if used after a certain date?
Severe hemorrhaging, death? Stroke? Tylenol has those warnings.
Eff safety and science. It's about beating the other team, eh
If you have an opinion, state it. If you want to say “mifepristone should be banned because reasons x, y, and z,” then say so.Don’t play stupid guessing games that waste everyone’s time. It’s childish.
My opinion: mifepristone should not be banned because it has been proven to be safe and effective.
-
1
-
"Shame! Shame!!" 1864 Called and wants its abortion law back!
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted · Edited by ChiGoose
No, man. I get the game you’re trying to play, you’re just very bad at it.
If JWHO didn’t challenge the law, then an unconstitutional law would be in effect. If you want to blame them for the outcome of challenging a blatantly unconstitutional law, then what you’re actually doing is arguing that states should be able to pass unconstitutional laws.
If California passed a law that nobody under 35 had a right to own a gun, the NRA would likely challenge that as unconstitutional. If SCOTUS took the case, and instead of deciding the question asked, proclaimed that nobody who wasn’t a member of a regulated state militia had a personal right to own a gun, would you blame the NRA?
Your line of questioning implies you would, and I think that’s just stupid.