Polite Politics

[roadtonowhere08]

20 minutes ago, Chewbacca Defense said:

He doesn't have to be charged or convicted.  See my post a few posts up where I cite Amendment 14 section 3

And as for the Biden thing, if they are operating under the same principles as the farce that is the Biden impeachment, then Biden voters don't need to get too concerned.

GOP ain't doing jack.  It's red meat to the mindless base.

Regarding the Colorado case, I totally see them going with a "convict then he can be omitted from the ballots" opinion.

[Rubus Leucodermis]

13 hours ago, roadtonowhere08 said:

Oh, I'd love to see the silly bargain basement lawyer reasons they might come up with.  It'll be pathetic for sure.

You will and yes it will be.

We are talking about cult members in thrall to their cult leader, after all.

[Minny_Weather]

8 hours ago, roadtonowhere08 said:

The elections are fair.  Nobody has found any actionable evidence to the contrary.  That's been done to death.  It's everything leading up to the elections that is rotten.

Trump getting himself into legal trouble and making himself ineligible for state ballots is 100% on him.  Too bad, so sad.

Now, the right can either be "states' rights"... or they can be hypocrites.  I think we all know what path they will choose.

And the funny part is, he still might win the d**n election!

"It's actually pretty hilarious how each party keeps handing everything to the other party on a silver platter and the other party just knocks the silver platter out of their hands and spits on it." - Minny_Weather

I appreciate the quote. It makes me feel full of wisdom.

I fully support state's rights but I do not believe that they trump (heh) the US Constitution. In fact, they don't. SCOTUS is totally going to shoot this down and I wouldn't be surprised to see one of the Democrat justices join the majority.

[Minny_Weather]

7 hours ago, Chewbacca Defense said:

Section 3 of article 14 says nothing about being convicted.

 

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

I've seen this peddled around so much in the past 24 hours. I know that it was intentionally left vague in order to make confederate leaders ineligible for office after the war, as Congress knew that they would never be convicted. 

If SCOTUS weren't a Republican majority, I'd be a bit less certain about my last post. However, the arbitrary nature of section 3 does need to go away and I think SCOTUS is going to do that.

[Chewbacca Defense]

On 12/18/2023 at 4:25 PM, Iceresistance said:

Is $148 Million each not enough??

Defamed Georgia poll workers who won $148M from Giuliani sue him again (msn.com)

After getting this ruling against him, he immediately goes out to the press and reiterates the very claims that brought about the first lawsuit....

Why shouldn't they sue him again....Clearly $148M isn't enough to shut him up......

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. 

[Hoosier]

On 12/19/2023 at 11:31 AM, SilverFallsAndrew said:

OH NO

https://www.the-sun.com/health/9895379/devious-covid-variant-worst-ever-immunity-falls-xmas/

I finally got covid after avoiding it all this time.  Almost certain I got it at a Christmas gathering last weekend.  Obviously don't know which variant I have, but it's not very pleasant.  Not severely ill, but I never had a cold that felt like this.  Feels more like the flu, at least in my case.  Fever, chills, aches, pretty sore throat, lots of congestion.

[hawkstwelve]

New NH poll puts Trump support at 33% and Haley at 29%. Christie, annoyingly, still captures 13%.

https://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2024/rep/nhrep.html

[Rubus Leucodermis]

12 hours ago, roadtonowhere08 said:

GOP ain't doing jack.  It's red meat to the mindless base.

Regarding the Colorado case, I totally see them going with a "convict then he can be omitted from the ballots" opinion.

We shall see. It is certainly plausible. Argue that the ban applies, but so does due process, which requires a conviction before a ban.

There is a 6–3 conservative majority on the Court, but Trump has more in common with fascism than conservatism. Many conservatives acknowledge this in private, and a few do in public. Supreme Court justices, with their life appointments, don’t need to pander to any MAGA base, so are more likely to act in accordance with this acknowledgement. If half the conservative justices do, we get a 6–3 ruling.

[SilverFallsAndrew]

12 hours ago, roadtonowhere08 said:

You can slap your forehead all you want, hawks.  I did not bring up abortion.  You did.  I'm not backing down because you don't agree.

The right to personal autonomy is a more fundamental right than voting.  It just is.  I don't care if you agree.

Yes, tell us more about how slaughtering children is the most noble act. 

[SilverFallsAndrew]

Just now, hawkstwelve said:

New NH poll puts Trump support at 33% and Haley at 29%. Christie, annoyingly, still captures 13%.

https://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2024/rep/nhrep.html

Likely taken before the latest lawfare attack against Trump. 

[SilverFallsAndrew]

5 hours ago, Minny_Weather said:

I've seen this peddled around so much in the past 24 hours. I know that it was intentionally left vague in order to make confederate leaders ineligible for office after the war, as Congress knew that they would never be convicted. 

If SCOTUS weren't a Republican majority, I'd be a bit less certain about my last post. However, the arbitrary nature of section 3 does need to go away and I think SCOTUS is going to do that.

You are most likely correct. It would be terrible for the country if a court was allowed to disqualify Trump, we should all be able to agree on that fact. 

[SilverFallsAndrew]

11 hours ago, roadtonowhere08 said:

GOP ain't doing jack.  It's red meat to the mindless base.

Regarding the Colorado case, I totally see them going with a "convict then he can be omitted from the ballots" opinion.

Unfortunately for you he is not charged with insurrection. 

[Andie]

Speaking as a woman on the topic we have a right, in my opinion, to make decisions regarding our health and bodies. Whether we consult with a doctor and/or a minister is our right if we choose.   
I don’t think I’m stepping out of my lane here. I believe the same for men. 
As citizens in this country our rights are getting slowly eroded away.  More control over every aspect of our being.  

It’s just a basic right to be the “Captain” of your own ship. I don’t want some unknown bureaucrat telling me if I should have a child.  He/She can live according to their own ethics.  
And yeah, I’m all for personal autonomy, whether it’s abortion or ANY other topic.  

[Minny_Weather]

9 minutes ago, Andie said:

Speaking as a woman on the topic we have a right, in my opinion, to make decisions regarding our health and bodies. Whether we consult with a doctor and/or a minister is our right if we choose.   
I don’t think I’m stepping out of my lane here. I believe the same for men. 
As citizens in this country our rights are getting slowly eroded away.  More control over every aspect of our being.  

It’s just a basic right to be the “Captain” of your own ship. I don’t want some unknown bureaucrat telling me if I should have a child.  He/She can live according to their own ethics.  
And yeah, I’m all for personal autonomy, whether it’s abortion or ANY other topic.  

My issue with this argument is that the decision to abort isn't a totally individual decision. After all, you are choosing to terminate the life of a human being. That's not something that should be taken lightly.

I think post-embryonic abortion should be blanket illegal with the only exception being if the woman's life in danger. I am fully in support of easier access to contraceptives, birth control, and same-sex adoption in order to minimize the impact of abortion being illegal. And I don't think being a man invalidates that opinion.

[roadtonowhere08]

11 minutes ago, Andie said:

Speaking as a woman on the topic we have a right, in my opinion, to make decisions regarding our health and bodies. Whether we consult with a doctor and/or a minister is our right if we choose.   
I don’t think I’m stepping out of my lane here. I believe the same for men. 
As citizens in this country our rights are getting slowly eroded away.  More control over every aspect of our being.  

It’s just a basic right to be the “Captain” of your own ship. I don’t want some unknown bureaucrat telling me if I should have a child.  He/She can live according to their own ethics.  
And yeah, I’m all for personal autonomy, whether it’s abortion or ANY other topic.  

Well said.  Now be on the look out for the head slapping and weenie reactions from the men who want to tell you what you can do with your body.

[Minny_Weather]

25 minutes ago, hawkstwelve said:

New NH poll puts Trump support at 33% and Haley at 29%. Christie, annoyingly, still captures 13%.

https://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2024/rep/nhrep.html

In an ideal world, Republicans would learn from 2016 and everyone except Haley would drop out to run against Trump. 

 

Unfortunately, the world isn't ideal.

[Minny_Weather]

Just now, roadtonowhere08 said:

Well said.  Now be on the look out for the head slapping and weenie reactions from the men who want to tell you what you can do with your body.

Unlike a certain few people on here, Andie has a good history in this thread of being well-spoken and level-headed with her views on basically everything, even if I don't always agree with her. That's what gets someone the decency of an actual reply from me, versus someone who is not worth my time debating.

[Minny_Weather]

1 hour ago, Hoosier said:

I finally got covid after avoiding it all this time.  Almost certain I got it at a Christmas gathering last weekend.  Obviously don't know which variant I have, but it's not very pleasant.  Not severely ill, but I never had a cold that felt like this.  Feels more like the flu, at least in my case.  Fever, chills, aches, pretty sore throat, lots of congestion.

COVID was very nearly the most miserable I've been from an illness (only beat by tonsillitis and similar to a sinus infection). Seven full days of zero energy, zero appetite, and not being able to breathe through my nose. I gave it to my grandma and she was only down and out for a day.

Didn't change my views on the 2020 reaction being ridiculous, though.

[Chewbacca Defense]

5 minutes ago, Minny_Weather said:

My issue with this argument is that the decision to abort isn't a totally individual decision. After all, you are choosing to terminate the life of a human being. That's not something that should be taken lightly.

I think post-embryonic abortion should be blanket illegal with the only exception being if the woman's life in danger. I am fully in support of easier access to contraceptives, birth control, and same-sex adoption in order to minimize the impact of abortion being illegal. And I don't think being a man invalidates that opinion.

That's not working out so good in Texas for that woman who has 2 kids, wants to be able to have more kids.  I believe there is also a case in another state where there is no fetal heart activity, but for whatever reason the woman's body is not aborting on its own.  Last I heard, the state told her "no"  I can't imagine what kind of problems that woman is facing with a clearly non-viable fetus being left in her uterus.

Both Texas, and the state where this other case is have "exceptions for the woman's life" clauses, yet that upstanding citizen Texas claims as its Attorney General is doubling down and saying he will prosecute any doctor or hospital that helps.  Luckily, that woman was able to seek care elsewhere (although I think that even that is illegal in Texas?)

[roadtonowhere08]

17 minutes ago, Minny_Weather said:

Unlike a certain few people on here, Andie has a good history in this thread of being well-spoken and level-headed with her views on basically everything, even if I don't always agree with her. That's what gets someone the decency of an actual reply from me, versus someone who is not worth my time debating.

Like everyone else, my time on this planet is limited.  I do not wish to waste it debating abortion on a forum of strangers, especially when I did not begin this conversation.  You can thank hawkstwelve for that inclusion.

Nobody approaches abortion with the sort of whimsical nonchalant attitudes that some here believe.  I find it funny that many who are opposed to abortion in this country are also opposed to enhancing the quality of life of the mother and baby once born based on their voting patterns and political stances.

It's almost like they talk out of both sides of their mouth.  Imagine that.

[Rubus Leucodermis]

12 minutes ago, Chewbacca Defense said:

Both Texas, and the state where this other case is have "exceptions for the woman's life" clauses, yet that upstanding citizen Texas claims as its Attorney General is doubling down and saying he will prosecute any doctor or hospital that helps.  Luckily, that woman was able to seek care elsewhere (although I think that even that is illegal in Texas?)

I don’t see how such restrictions pass the Commerce Clause in Article I Section 8.

[Chewbacca Defense]

1 minute ago, Rubus Leucodermis said:

I don’t see how such restrictions pass the Commerce Clause in Article I Section 8.

I just checked, and no state has  that *yet* but I have definitely read about some states (Texas being one of them) *wanting* to do that, and yeah, I don't see how that would fly.

 

But then again, Texas tried to sue to withhold election result in other states...again that pillar of honesty and integrity Ken Paxton shining bright deep in the heart of Texas!

[Hoosier]

10 minutes ago, Minny_Weather said:

COVID was very nearly the most miserable I've been from an illness (only beat by tonsillitis and similar to a sinus infection). Seven full days of zero energy, zero appetite, and not being able to breathe through my nose. I gave it to my grandma and she was only down and out for a day.

Didn't change my views on the 2020 reaction being ridiculous, though.

I haven't had much of an issue with energy except when my fever spikes.  I hear ya about the nose breathing.

I've tried to give the benefit of the doubt on that early period in 2020.  There were some unknowns and any risk of having a massive crisis that threatened the healthcare system wasn't an enviable position for decision makers to be in.  But there was too much failure to adapt and some of the policies/restrictions definitely went on for too long, especially in certain states.

[roadtonowhere08]

3 minutes ago, Chewbacca Defense said:

I just checked, and no state has  that *yet* but I have definitely read about some states (Texas being one of them) *wanting* to do that, and yeah, I don't see how that would fly.

 

But then again, Texas tried to sue to withhold election result in other states...again that pillar of honesty and integrity Ken Paxton shining bright deep in the heart of Texas!

/s

[SnarkyGoblin]

6 hours ago, Minny_Weather said:

I've seen this peddled around so much in the past 24 hours. I know that it was intentionally left vague in order to make confederate leaders ineligible for office after the war, as Congress knew that they would never be convicted. 

If SCOTUS weren't a Republican majority, I'd be a bit less certain about my last post. However, the arbitrary nature of section 3 does need to go away and I think SCOTUS is going to do that.

That's not how our government works.  SCOTUS doesn't just get to make entire paragraphs of the constitution "go away."

More evidence we are slowly approaching the normalization of fascism.

[roadtonowhere08]

3 minutes ago, SnarkyGoblin said:

That's not how our government works.  SCOTUS doesn't just get to make entire paragraphs of the constitution "go away."

More evidence we are slowly approaching the normalization of fascism.

Don't forget to give him a "weenie" reaction.  It's all the rage these days!

[Minny_Weather]

8 minutes ago, SnarkyGoblin said:

That's not how our government works.  SCOTUS doesn't just get to make entire paragraphs of the constitution "go away."

More evidence we are slowly approaching the normalization of fascism.

Cool, so you ignored the post before where I explained why I think they'd overturn it. 

[roadtonowhere08]

Like a Swiss watch 

[Minny_Weather]

9 minutes ago, roadtonowhere08 said:

Like a Swiss watch 

Good guess! Glad you've grasped the concept that I have no intention of giving serious replies to people who clearly don't want to argue in good faith.

[roadtonowhere08]

6 minutes ago, Minny_Weather said:

Good guess! Glad you've grasped the concept that I have no intention of giving serious replies to people who clearly don't want to argue in good faith.

Your stance is noted.  Have a weenie.

[SnarkyGoblin]

15 hours ago, hawkstwelve said:

What's to stop South Dakota from barring Biden on some outlandish legal theory?

The South Dakota State Supreme Court?

[SnarkyGoblin]

29 minutes ago, Minny_Weather said:

Cool, so you ignored the post before where I explained why I think they'd overturn it. 

The post where you said that the section was too vague and therefore needed to be ignored?

Imagine if that logic was used on the 2nd Amendment.

[Minny_Weather]

36 minutes ago, SnarkyGoblin said:

The South Dakota State Supreme Court?

You have way too much faith in the recent integrity of the judicial system if you don't think the South Dakota supreme court would pull the same sh!t that Colorado just did.

[Minny_Weather]

30 minutes ago, SnarkyGoblin said:

The post where you said that the section was too vague and therefore needed to be ignored?

Imagine if that logic was used on the 2nd Amendment.

Okay cool you're applying strawmen now and I don't respond to people who do that either. 

I never said it should be ignored. I said that it is heavily up for interpretation due to its vagueness.

[Andie]

16 hours ago, Chewbacca Defense said:

I think in all likelihood it will be resolved quickly.  The Supreme Court has already said they are fast tracking a couple of other cases related to Trump and his interesting "claim" of Presidential immunity and the J6 trials (I am blanking on the details on that one right now).  I think responses for the immunity claim were due to SC today or tomorrow, and there is the possibility of them handing down an opinion without the full report they usually provide.  I forget the terminology, but basically when a quick turn is needed, SC can give their opinion with a quick summary, then follow up with their usual write-up 2-3 months later.

I've said this before:  Though Trump nominated 3 of them, I think SC ultimately recognize that Trump is a threat to them and their power.  Trump has already shown a very strong disregard for the court system, and would easily toss them aside as soon as they hand down a ruling for something he does not like (and assuming he were to get another term).  I don't see them allowing that to happen.

 

I really hope politics can stay out it.  That’s not the first step in this.  But it may.
I really want to see this stuff settled in a clear legal manner so no one can muddy up the waters. Cooler heads, etc.
No matter which side of the fence this thing goes the health of the nation is critical.  

We have more fish to fry.  An economy that will see plenty of change with 2 million+ immigrants in the system and Inflation. 
No one’s really proposed a real solution on the border and South America and other nations are flocking here and a WH that ignores the topic. 
Where it goes, I just don’t know.  But I’m praying for the best.  Everyone will feel it financially in time, but those still working with kids may feel it the hardest with taxes, school, and such  

This is an important election time overall.  
Everyone from President down to your City council. Vote smart. Let’s hope solutions present themselves. I feel bad for everyone under 60.  They’ll absorb the taxes and economic impacts on their families and their kids the most. 
My house is almost paid for and I’m tucked in a modest well run area. Good retirement, we take care of ourselves.  
Still, it will hit us. The economics of all this change has just begun. Anyone providing a needed service should fo well.  Plan smart. 

[Andie]

2 hours ago, Minny_Weather said:

Unlike a certain few people on here, Andie has a good history in this thread of being well-spoken and level-headed with her views on basically everything, even if I don't always agree with her. That's what gets someone the decency of an actual reply from me, versus someone who is not worth my time debating.

Thanks Minny.  
Maybe it’s my Midwestern Dad coming out in me. 

[Andie]

2 hours ago, Minny_Weather said:

My issue with this argument is that the decision to abort isn't a totally individual decision. After all, you are choosing to terminate the life of a human being. That's not something that should be taken lightly.

I think post-embryonic abortion should be blanket illegal with the only exception being if the woman's life in danger. I am fully in support of easier access to contraceptives, birth control, and same-sex adoption in order to minimize the impact of abortion being illegal. And I don't think being a man invalidates that opinion.

Absolutely.   
The father has rights. No doubt.  But we all know the mother will take on most of the burden of raising the child. Sadly, many fathers don’t. Many reasons for that.  My husband was the later as the mother moved far away and only wanted more support.  Thankfully all those days are behind us. But his kids paid the real price of that tactic. 
The father gets cheated in my opinion, as a Dad in a kids life is just irreplaceable.  My father was an inspiration for me to begin building my chemical plant in 1990.  No woman had done that at the time. It changed the specialty it was in.  
I give my father a great deal of credit for his tutoring us. He was so innovative.  

That said, mothers often bear the burden and it’s the children that are cheated in broken families.  We damage our greatest resource for the future. Those kids.   
But I wish we’d come up with a better system for children of separated/divorced parents.  What we have right now just is a bad patch at best. 

[Deweydog]

Not guilty on all charges for the three Tacoma officers…

[Chewbacca Defense]

4 hours ago, Deweydog said:

Not guilty on all charges for the three Tacoma officers…

I'll admit I didn't follow that trial as closely as I had meant to, but the little bit I had heard, I was having a hard time finding where they did anything that rose to the level of warranting charges.  I'm sure there are some training/policy issues that need to be addressed ("lessons learned").

That said, I'm guessing all hell will break loose in the south sound tonight.

[Rubus Leucodermis]

3 hours ago, SnarkyGoblin said:

That's not how our government works.  SCOTUS doesn't just get to make entire paragraphs of the constitution "go away."

Actually they do if they want, but the whole exercise can hardly be considered conservative in any real sense. It is, however, quite compatible with the practices of fascism (as I believe you have already noted).