|
|
Post by lmills72 on Jul 7, 2024 13:45:09 GMT -6
Wait!! Wait just a minute!!! Are you guys telling me Trump is a politician who accepts money from special interests and who sometimes breaks promises???!!?? Holy shit!!! Ok then. I'm switching my preference to Biden...or Harris or whoever. The issue is that many Trump voters believe he isn't a politician, that he's somehow better. Actually he's worse. A regular politician will be wooed by special interests but they usually align with one side of an issue. They aren't likely to switch sides on things like abortion or gun control. Trump is nothing if not morally flexible. He'll flip-flop faster than you can say "background check" if it'll benefit him in some regard. So Biden is feeble, and sometimes not mentally sharp. I would argue that Trump is no better. It amazes me that Trump just tells lie after lie, falls asleep at a trial, just riffs shit off the top his his head without a care for accuracy or factuality and Republicans are like "That's my Man." Biden stumbles a few times and forgets a few things and Democrats (and that lovely mainstream media you love to criticize) are like, "Oh my God, the sky is falling." And the hand-wringing on this board with the cries of "who's running the country." If you weren't asking the same thing when Trump was in office, you shouldn't be asking it now. I have more confidence in our country being able to function under even a feeble Biden (or Harris or whoever) because Biden, et al., has put decent people in positions of power. Biden's had 2 cabinet position changes during his term. Trump had 14. Biden's had a 71% turnover in top staff positions (which is pretty much in line with other presidents dating back to Reagan); Trump's turnover in those positions was 92% (the highest percentage by far of any president dating back to Reagan) with some key positions having as many as six different people in those roles in 4 years. This despite Trump's contention that he "hires the best people." Many of those "best people" had some pretty derisive comments thrown at them by the boss on their way out the door. Not surprisingly, several of those folks don't support him now. Something's not right there. Either he puts shitty people in place or he's a shitty leader. Either way, that's more than a little concerning to me. Because if he gets a second term, he's not going to want pushback from people in those positions. He'll just want "yes men." Look, neither Biden nor Trump are probably smarter than the average politician. The difference is Biden knows he's not and relies on people with expertise to advise him. Trump thinks he's the smartest guy in the room, which is at least partly to blame for the fact that more than 1 million Americans died as a result of his lack of leadership during his first term. And if he gets a staff who'll just acquiesce to whatever he says during a second term, holy hell ... |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jul 7, 2024 15:33:44 GMT -6
Wait!! Wait just a minute!!! Are you guys telling me Trump is a politician who accepts money from special interests and who sometimes breaks promises???!!?? Holy shit!!! Ok then. I'm switching my preference to Biden...or Harris or whoever. The issue is that many Trump voters believe he isn't a politician, that he's somehow better. Actually he's worse. A regular politician will be wooed by special interests but they usually align with one side of an issue. They aren't likely to switch sides on things like abortion or gun control. Trump is nothing if not morally flexible. He'll flip-flop faster than you can say "background check" if it'll benefit him in some regard. So Biden is feeble, and sometimes not mentally sharp. I would argue that Trump is no better. It amazes me that Trump just tells lie after lie, falls asleep at a trial, just riffs shit off the top his his head without a care for accuracy or factuality and Republicans are like "That's my Man." Biden stumbles a few times and forgets a few things and Democrats (and that lovely mainstream media you love to criticize) are like, "Oh my God, the sky is falling." And the hand-wringing on this board with the cries of "who's running the country." If you weren't asking the same thing when Trump was in office, you shouldn't be asking it now. I have more confidence in our country being able to function under even a feeble Biden (or Harris or whoever) because Biden, et al., has put decent people in positions of power. Biden's had 2 cabinet position changes during his term. Trump had 14. Biden's had a 71% turnover in top staff positions (which is pretty much in line with other presidents dating back to Reagan); Trump's turnover in those positions was 92% (the highest percentage by far of any president dating back to Reagan) with some key positions having as many as six different people in those roles in 4 years. This despite Trump's contention that he "hires the best people." Many of those "best people" had some pretty derisive comments thrown at them by the boss on their way out the door. Not surprisingly, several of those folks don't support him now. Something's not right there. Either he puts shitty people in place or he's a shitty leader. Either way, that's more than a little concerning to me. Because if he gets a second term, he's not going to want pushback from people in those positions. He'll just want "yes men." Look, neither Biden nor Trump are probably smarter than the average politician. The difference is Biden knows he's not and relies on people with expertise to advise him. Trump thinks he's the smartest guy in the room, which is at least partly to blame for the fact that more than 1 million Americans died as a result of his lack of leadership during his first term. And if he gets a staff who'll just acquiesce to whatever he says during a second term, holy hell ... " alt="" style="max-width:100%;">  |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 7, 2024 16:00:46 GMT -6
"If your bad decisions about drink, or food., or driving recklessly or other unwise behavior lead to a need for medical care, would you support the state preventing you having the choice to seek medical care about a resulting condition? It might have been "better" had you acted "more responsibly," after all. Maybe." Uh. Doesn't this example leave out something rather important involved in the abortion debate? This is an excellent example of why I don't generally care to discuss abortion with people. They've often dug themselves into a partisan political position and are absolutely incapable of thinking about it in a reasonable way anymore. So go debate abortion with someone else. There is no lack of willing people on the other side, and many of them will do it just as stupidly as you. Or else, just go fuck yourself. I don't care. I'm not ignoring anything. Roe was imperfect, displeased many, but satisfied many more, and was a better compromise than current law which raises the questions above, which you refuse to answer. Ignore them. A complicated philosophical issue, you repeatedly say. I agree there, and think the law should recognize that and balance conflicting interests. How is that not reasonable? |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 7, 2024 16:15:56 GMT -6
I have more confidence in our country being able to function under even a feeble Biden (or Harris or whoever) because Biden, et al., has put decent people in positions of power. Biden's had 2 cabinet position changes during his term. Trump had 14. Biden's had a 71% turnover in top staff positions (which is pretty much in line with other presidents dating back to Reagan); Trump's turnover in those positions was 92% (the highest percentage by far of any president dating back to Reagan)... Something's not right there... "Didn't read, LOL." Mills is reading and responding to your posts. He raises a factual point here.
Is it the the voice of reason to refuse to read arguments contrary to your opinion and apparently pride yourself on it?
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jul 7, 2024 16:20:52 GMT -6
Is there maybe an important factor in the abortion question that doesn’t exist in your “driving recklessly” analogy? Can you think of something different about abortion as compared to fixing a broken bone, or liver transplant or liposuction?
Come on. You can get it! Try hard. You can do it! I know you can!
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jul 7, 2024 16:33:42 GMT -6
Mills is reading and responding to your posts. He raises a factual point here.
Is it the the voice of reason to refuse to read arguments contrary to your opinion and apparently pride yourself on it?
Yeah, sorry about that. But I got to the part where he said " So Biden is feeble, and sometimes not mentally sharp. I would argue that Trump is no better", and I got to laughing so hard, I couldn't get any further. You see, I watched the debate and came away with basically the same evaluation as the Democrats in Washington who are currently running around in full panty-wadded freak out mode, wondering what the hell they are going to do now. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 7, 2024 17:26:49 GMT -6
Is there maybe an important factor in the abortion question that doesn’t exist in your “driving recklessly” analogy? Can you think of something different about abortion as compared to fixing a broken bone, or liver transplant or liposuction? Come on. You can get it! Try hard. You can do it! I know you can! Your argument appeared to be that careless behavior and lack of responsibility was very important. I thought that irrelevant to the abortion discussion if you thought it justified medical care being withheld by law. Can you think of something different about aborting a single celled embryo with the morning after pill and people killing one another? At what stage of development do you compare life in the womb with killing someone on the street? It's a complicated philosophical question when a life is a person with rights. Some slack is required, current state laws after the Roe decision is overturned do not always do that. The Court made a mistake there to allow that. |
|
|
|
Post by lmills72 on Jul 7, 2024 19:56:46 GMT -6
Mills is reading and responding to your posts. He raises a factual point here.
Is it the the voice of reason to refuse to read arguments contrary to your opinion and apparently pride yourself on it?
Yeah, sorry about that. But I got to the part where he said " So Biden is feeble, and sometimes not mentally sharp. I would argue that Trump is no better", and I got to laughing so hard, I couldn't get any further. You see, I watched the debate and came away with basically the same evaluation as the Democrats in Washington who are currently running around in full panty-wadded freak out mode, wondering what the hell they are going to do now. You should tune in a little more often, try to become, you know, a little more well-informed. But I know, you follow politics a lot like you follow BSU basketball. Tune in once a year to see if there's anything interesting and then issue a summary judgment that has the same accuracy level of a statement made by someone who doesn't follow it at all. |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jul 7, 2024 20:18:29 GMT -6
Ok. Ok. I’ll TRY to get through your post. But I can’t make any promises. My sense of humor sometimes just overcomes me. Could you maybe revise it and take out the funniest bits?
|
|
|
|
Post by thebsukid on Jul 7, 2024 20:36:17 GMT -6
Frankly, I think they’re all lunatics!
Biden who has trouble putting coherent sentences together and Trump
who names calls! I mean seriously it’s a mess!
Where are Reagan and JFK when we need them?!
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jul 7, 2024 20:42:16 GMT -6
Is there maybe an important factor in the abortion question that doesn’t exist in your “driving recklessly” analogy? Can you think of something different about abortion as compared to fixing a broken bone, or liver transplant or liposuction? Come on. You can get it! Try hard. You can do it! I know you can! Your argument appeared to be that careless behavior and lack of responsibility was very important. I thought that irrelevant to the abortion discussion if you thought it justified medical care being withheld by law. Can you think of something different about aborting a single celled embryo with the morning after pill and people killing one another? At what stage of development do you compare life in the womb with killing someone on the street? It's a complicated philosophical question when a life is a person with rights. Some slack is required, current state laws after the Roe decision is overturned do not always do that. The Court made a mistake there to allow that. Based on my fairly limited knowledge of the facts and some incomplete thinking, viability outside the womb strikes me as a pretty important marker and a point beyond which abortion becomes VERY morally dubious to say the least. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 7, 2024 20:52:57 GMT -6
Your argument appeared to be that careless behavior and lack of responsibility was very important. I thought that irrelevant to the abortion discussion if you thought it justified medical care being withheld by law. Can you think of something different about aborting a single celled embryo with the morning after pill and people killing one another? At what stage of development do you compare life in the womb with killing someone on the street? It's a complicated philosophical question when a life is a person with rights. Some slack is required, current state laws after the Roe decision is overturned do not always do that. The Court made a mistake there to allow that. Based on my fairly limited knowledge of the facts and some incomplete thinking, viability outside the womb strikes me as a pretty important marker and a point beyond which abortion becomes VERY morally dubious to say the least. We agree. Not perfect was Roe, but a good compromise. Unfortunately, most red states are not adopting that position. Along with a war by the right against the common medication used nation wide. Not to mention a movement to forbid medical birth control... |
|
|
|
Post by villagepub on Jul 8, 2024 6:51:46 GMT -6
"If your bad decisions about drink, or food., or driving recklessly or other unwise behavior lead to a need for medical care, would you support the state preventing you having the choice to seek medical care about a resulting condition? It might have been "better" had you acted "more responsibly," after all. Maybe." Uh. Doesn't this example leave out something rather important involved in the abortion debate? This is an excellent example of why I don't generally care to discuss abortion with people. They've often dug themselves into a partisan political position and are absolutely incapable of thinking about it in a reasonable way anymore. So go debate abortion with someone else. There is no lack of willing people on the other side, and many of them will do it just as stupidly as you. Or else, just go fuck yourself. I don't care. I'm not ignoring anything. Roe was imperfect, displeased many, but satisfied many more, and was a better compromise than current law which raises the questions above, which you refuse to answer. Ignore them. A complicated philosophical issue, you repeatedly say. I agree there, and think the law should recognize that and balance conflicting interests. How is that not reasonable? Roe v. Wade was a court decision, not law. It led the way to several Federal legislative acts, most failed in Congress. The overturn of R v. W never took away abortion rights, or any right. It just redirected the specifics to be determined by each state, where most social programs should be decided, not at a fed level. This is in complete compliance with the 10th Amendment, and Article II of the Articles of Confederation. Almost all social programs, if not all, fall of out the scope of the Consititution. Each state has a unique complexion. They should decide these matters at the state level. With respect to this, our tax structure should be reversed. Less should go to the Federal government and more should be focused locally at the state's level. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 8, 2024 9:59:10 GMT -6
I'm not ignoring anything. Roe was imperfect, displeased many, but satisfied many more, and was a better compromise than current law which raises the questions above, which you refuse to answer. Ignore them. A complicated philosophical issue, you repeatedly say. I agree there, and think the law should recognize that and balance conflicting interests. How is that not reasonable? Roe v. Wade was a court decision, not law. It led the way to several Federal legislative acts, most failed in Congress. The overturn of R v. W never took away abortion rights, or any right. It just redirected the specifics to be determined by each state, where most social programs should be decided, not at a fed level. This is in complete compliance with the 10th Amendment, and Article II of the Articles of Confederation . See my post below about the Articles of Confederation which were replaced by the US Constitution, and the statement of the 10th Amendment.
Roe v Wade was a Supreme Court decision. It was law. You are simply wrong to say otherwise. Court cases count, they interpret the statutes and Constitution.
The new case changes abortion rights (in the view of many, wrongly decided) by changing the interpretation of the US Constitution that had been law of the land since Roe.
What Roe said is that a woman had an individual right to make the decision on abortion, but it established limits, deciding states had a right to regulate in the second trimester, and that there was a highly limited right to have an abortion in the 3rd trimester.
The new law has led to many (red) states passing statutes limiting very severely or eliminating any right to have an abortion. Some absolute, without exception, some limited to such a short time period a woman may not be certain she is pregnant, some with limitations that delay doctors in abortion treatment and make it much more time consuming and expensive for a woman to seek an abortion.
Some states criminalize the doctor and create a risk of prosecution which deters doctors practicing in that state from considering the choice. Faced with life or death decisions it would allow a prosecutor to second guess the decision and charge the doctor.
Some states have or are considering laws making it criminal for a woman to leave the state to seek abortion where it is legal, make it criminal for anyone to assist a woman to do so, or advise her of rights elsewhere.
The compromise inherent in Roe v Wade is now gone in those states. A woman has much less or no choice.
The states previously had discretion to regulate abortion after the first trimester, but in that second trimester there was time for a woman to take permitted action.
The issue of Federal taxation is another topic. Certainly one that is debatable. There are however many issues where the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution gives Federal jurisdiction. Other things are specifically the Federal government's responsibility under the Constitution.
It's another argument whether exercise of that jusrisdiction is wise, it certainly is in some cases, debatable in others.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jul 8, 2024 10:17:42 GMT -6
Almost all social programs, if not all, fall of out the scope of the Consititution. Each state has a unique complexion. They should decide these matters at the state level. Hold on a minute. That statement is in part quite incorrect.
You are citing above the Articles of Confederation, from 1777 which are of course the original very loose organization under which the United States operated during the war of independence.
After the United States had won independence, the states met in the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 and set aside that "confederation" and created the United States under the US Constitution. That document you cite is not the Constitution.
As a result you are perhaps overlooking the operational language in Article VI of the Constituion (known as the Supremacy Clause):
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
The 10th Amendment does say:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
While states may have in some sense "sovereignty" the Constitution does expressly delegate quite a bit of specific powers to the federal government. Including an Executive Branch, Judicial Branch and Legislative Branch. These did not exist in that form under the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution gives each branch powers over the states.
Article I section 8 of the Constitution gives legislative powers to the Congress. Note that the last clause gives quite a bit of "specific" flexibility to do what is "necessary and proper" to do any of the other designated powers. The Courts decide what is necessary and proper if the Congress acts and it is disputed.
The Commerce Power is also quite broad since there is very little commerce in the US which is NOT interstate in nature. VERY FEW businesses deal only with customers or suppliers from ONLY that state. That was not true in 1789, where there was much more commerce just intrastate, but the framers realized the evils of tariff or other constraints by one state on another in commerce and decided the federal government should have power to regulate interstate commerce.
Section 8: Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;-And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
|
|
