Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - crutonius

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 27, 2022, 05:56:34 AM »
I can't speak for everyone switching party affiliation but I've switched mine to Republican.  The reason for this is that the Democratic candidates seem harmless generally but the Republicans often scare the shit of me.  The primary offers me an extra chance to head off these maniacs.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 26, 2022, 09:10:25 PM »
I haven't seen this Vermont bill but seeing as you're misinformed about the recent bills in congress I'm going to guess you're misinformed about this one as well.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 26, 2022, 07:42:16 PM »

Many Democrat legislators are pushing for late term abortions, which places them on the wrong side of popular opinion.

Who?  How many?

It has been that way for a while. Democrats favor late term abortions.

On a national level in 1998 there was the HR 1122 - Partial-Birth/Late-Term Abortion bill which seeked to ban the practice of partial abortions where the fetus is partially delivered and aborted.

https://justfacts.votesmart.org/bill/2858/8202/156/partial-birthlate-term-abortion-bill

Vote Smart's Synopsis:
"Vote to pass a bill that prohibits any individual from knowingly performing a procedure, in which a fetus is partially delivered before it is aborted, unless the life of the woman is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury."



In 2015 Democrats again also voted against a bill to ban late term abortions:



Earlier this year in February 2022, Senate Majorty Leader Chuch Schumer introduced a bill into the Senate, that was passed by the House in Sept 2021, to codify abortion at all stages.

https://www.frc.org/updatearticle/20220225/dems-abortion

    "On February 28, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) will bring the Abortion on Demand Until Birth Act, otherwise known as the Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA, S. 1975), to a vote. This legislation codifies Roe v. Wade's precedent of legal abortion through the entirety of pregnancy. The bill passed the House in September and needs 60 votes in order to pass the Senate. If the bill does pass and is signed into law, it will become the first-ever piece of federal legislation legalizing the killing of an unborn child."

Surprise, surprise, at the end of the previous year in September of 2021 House Democrats had voted in favor of it on a nearly party line vote.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/24/politics/house-vote-women-health-protection-act/index.html

    (CNN) The House on Friday passed the Women's Health Protection Act, a bill aimed at preserving access to an abortion nationwide, as abortion rights are being threatened across the country by Republican-led state legislatures.

    The House passed the measure on nearly a party-line vote, with Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas voting with Republicans against the measure. The vote was 218-211.

Democrats love late term abortion. You can find a similar Democrat voting record on a state level by looking for late term abortion bills by state.

Democrats are always the ones who vote in favor of late term abortions.

Democrats are always the ones who introduce bills for late term abortions.

Democrats are always the ones who vote against bills banning late terms abortions.

That is just the way it is. Late term abortions are a Democrat staple item.

1998?  Times have changed quite a bit.  The Democrats now resemble the Republicans then quite a bit more than the current Republican party.  Things have shifted to the right quite a bit.  I don't think it's relevant to dig into that one.

2015,  not sure if 20 weeks is late term.  That's a bit of a stretch.  Also it looks like several democrats did vote for it while a few republicans voted against it.  I think if they threw in some language legalizing abortions earlier than 20 weeks then they probably would have gotten a lot more support. 

2021 also 2022.  The link you provided seems to be, well, lies I think is the best way to put it.  I'm reading the actual text of the bill and I'm only seeing abortions past fetal viability allowed in the case of an extreme medical risk.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 26, 2022, 06:24:24 PM »

Many Democrat legislators are pushing for late term abortions, which places them on the wrong side of popular opinion.

Who?  How many?

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 25, 2022, 11:21:01 PM »
People who are strongly for it will be living in places where it will be legal.
So all people make their residence location decisions solely based upon whether abortion is legal or not in their area?
Like-minded individuals congregate together.

So basically your feelings are your source on this.

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 25, 2022, 04:38:26 PM »
I feel like the timing of this might have been a  gift to the Democrats for the mid-term elections? I mean, it's true, the only way to fight this is by legislating; and the Democrats have five months to get that message across. This was a MASSIVELY unpopular decision; 70% of the country feels a woman has the right to choose what they do with their own bodies. The Supreme Court has given the Democrats just enough time to get the message out that only by maintaining (and building?) on their lead in Congress can voters have a hope of protecting that right, while ensuring that the decision will still be very fresh in voters' minds.

Between licking the leader of an insurrection's boots and allowing him to control their party and just continuing to make unpopular, backwards decisions, the Republicans almost seem like they're trying to sabotage themselves going forward.
70 percent, uh?

I am sure the polls you refer to are totally legitmate. ::)

I think you're conflating supporting any right to abortion with an unlimited right to abortion.  Any poll I see shows the people opposing abortion for any reason are strongly in the minority.  Feel free to post your own though.

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 25, 2022, 02:35:27 PM »
Mission: Success



How is never getting casually fucked again a successful mission? Have you gone full Gilead; that fucking is solely the realm of procreation?

I doubt Tom had much prospects for that sort of activity regardless of the status of RwV.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 24, 2022, 06:17:59 PM »
Practically speaking this doesn't do as much as it seems.  About 60% of abortions are done by a pill they can send in the mail.

The next struggle I'm sure will be to monitor people's mail and break into their medicine cabinets.

Except that there are cases where women who had miscarriages come under criminal investigation, so that’s not great, as rare as those cases are. Also, Thomas literally saying that this opens the door for striking down rights connected to other groups the GOP hates is ominous.

Yeah that is ominous.  I guess I shouldn't have expected them to just declare it "Mission Accomplished" and calm down.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 24, 2022, 06:07:07 PM »
Practically speaking this doesn't do as much as it seems.  About 60% of abortions are done by a pill they can send in the mail.

The next struggle I'm sure will be to monitor people's mail and break into their medicine cabinets.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Texas GOP
« on: June 24, 2022, 05:01:05 AM »
It's worth reading the document.  It's clever in a way in that it's so extreme that no one will believe that a mainstream political party actually said this.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: June 15, 2022, 02:54:38 PM »
I would have gone with Stormy Daniels or Kellayanne Conway.


13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 15, 2022, 04:32:26 AM »
That seems a bit much.  If there were any truth to it then the MSM would be all over it.

14
There's also another problem with the strategy of letting psychos with nukes just have whatever they want; there's more than one psycho with a lot of nukes. 

Suppose we isolate.  Every bad actor with a nuclear arsenal starts grabbing land like a fire sale.  What happens if they start challenging each other?  I guess at least we can claim that the end of the world wasn't our fault.

15
From what I understand, Russia's nuclear arsenals is controlled by the Strategic Rocket Forces which has a good degree of independent from their executive branch.

It may be the case that Putin can't just circumvent this separation of powers without the attempt being very visible.

16

Also, non nuclear?  Wouldn't the same logic hold up if Putin attacks a nuclear power?  By this logic shouldn't the US surrender if Russia threatens to nuke us?

No, the same logic does not apply to a nuclear power. A nuclear power cannot invade another nuclear power. Again, this has been the basis for all geopolitics since the late 40's.


Aha.  So we give Ukraine, Taiwan and anyone we want to not get invaded their own set of nukes.

Problem solved.

17
In each of those times we successfully avoided nuclear war.
I dunno, Putin is still saying he'll totally start a nuclear war. Postponing it while giving him time to grow stronger (regardless of whether he squandered it) doesn't seem to have worked out so far.

There is no surviving a nuclear war, how strong (or weak) he grows is irrelevant when just 10% of Russia's nuclear arsenal could render the planet uninhabitable. Letting him take chunks out of his neighbors is a very easy price to pay for not dying in WWIII. He knows this, which is why it's his strategy to just do a bit at a time. If he were truly an unstable madman, he'd be invading all of his neighbors simultaneously while egging NATO. The fact that he has never done that is a great indicator that he hasn't completely lost his sanity just yet.

Maybe I'm wrong but I just don't think that giving up chunks of territory to anyone threatening nuclear war is a great foreign policy.

Why? At what point do you say "I'm willing to gamble the entire planet's habitability on this piece of land"? A lot of these arguments sound more like a desire to not "let Putin win" or some other egotistical gibberish versus the actual stakes at hand here. I would let Putin take all of non-nuclear Europe before I gamble a single American getting wiped by a Russian nuke. If Russia nukes us, we have to nuke them back, then the entire planet loses. Yes, the whole planet. A worldwide extinction event that humanity may not survive (and if it does, we lose several thousand years of civilizational progress over the course of a few days).

It doesn't make sense to risk nuclear war over some muddy terrain in Eastern Europe. Quite literally anything we do to Russia ratchets up the chance they end the world. It would be the irrational choice, yes, but massive wars have started over irrational choices that were easily avoided.

So your plan would be let anyone with a nuke take over as much territory as they want and hope that territory doesn't include where you happen to live?

Also, non nuclear?  Wouldn't the same logic hold up if Putin attacks a nuclear power?  By this logic shouldn't the US surrender if Russia threatens to nuke us?

18
I was referring to some theoretical line we could cross, arms-wise, where Russia would be justified to strike a NATO aligned country to stop the shipments.  He'll strike if he thinks he can get away with it, not because we sent Ukraine something too dangerous to Russia.

North Korea still exists with as much sanctions as Russia has.  They're too broke to invade anyone.  That's sort of the goal.

Ironically a lot of those nukes were in Ukraine.  They gave them up for Russia's guarantee to not invade them.  Again I seriously doubt that the sanctions we've put on them are likely to cause Russia to collapse.

Maybe I'm wrong but I just don't think that giving up chunks of territory to anyone threatening nuclear war is a great foreign policy.

19
I think its a mistake to assume that there's some kind of rulebook that Putin is referring to if he's deciding if he's okay with a particular weapon or not.  He's not a statesman.  He's a thug.  The only thing these people understand is power.  Frankly I think it's a mistake not to give Ukraine even more advanced weapons asap.

Also kicking an invading army out of the country is hardly backing them into a corner. 

Russia is nowhere near collapse.  A nation like Russia can take an enormous amount of punishment before it collapses.  In ww2 things were so bad they had to run public service announcements telling starving peasants not to cannibalize their children.  They still held up.

We've tried appeasing Putin many times.  Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Ukraine again, Ukraine for a third time.  I suppose if we appease him this one last time he might stop.  It has to work eventually right?

20
It really wouldn't be in their best interest to attack Russia itself as from the occasional ammo or fuel depot.  I'm pretty sure Ukraine knows that.

Also the triple 7's we've been giving them have enough range to attack cities in Russia from Kharkiv so it doesn't add much risk to Russian territory.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19  Next >