The Political Thread - Machiavelli Edition

[Malcador]

Sometimes I don't know if I'm in the Funny thread or the Political one. I'm so glad I will die someday.

 

Well in that case it should be in the Funny thread.  Parody account and all, from the looks of it.

[Hurlshort]

 

 

This wasn't a trial, it was a job interview and therefore there there is no presumption of anything.

 

Yeah, that's what sticks with me. This job interview has gone terrible but they seem pretty dead set on giving him the job.

Come on hurlie, didn't you repeatedly say you loved beer and start crying when you got interviewed to be a teacher?

 

 

You jest, but my beer podcast would probably get ripped to shreds if I was up for a high profile job.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

This wasn't a trial, it was a job interview and therefore there there is no presumption of anything.

 

 

Yeah, that's what sticks with me. This job interview has gone terrible but they seem pretty dead set on giving him the job.

Come on hurlie, didn't you repeatedly say you loved beer and start crying when you got interviewed to be a teacher?

 

You jest, but my beer podcast would probably get ripped to shreds if I was up for a high profile job.

Yeah, if I admitted to drinking as frequently as I used to then I'd be perpetually unemployed. Beyond the rape allegations and bizarre testimony this whole thing shows the standards to be a part of the supreme court is lower than a barista at Starbucks.

[Volourn]

L0L  You guys some puritans running your starbucks and other crap places. Silly Amerikans are extremely anti alcohol.

[Malcador]

Well, people really overrate booze. Ontarians whine about the LCBO as if it's a human rights violation they can't get their beer anywhere (or that they can't get booze on those public holidays that sneak up on them )

[HoonDing]

"The US must be working on similar trade agreements with the UK and EU nations. "

 

dude...

[ktchong]

Some words on abortion and how conservatives and Republicans have seriously misunderstood the actual impacts of Roe v. Wade.  Frankly, this is the end of Roe v. Wade even if Kavanaugh isn’t confirmed. It ended when Trump became the President.   Evangelicals support Trump because they want to overturn Roe v Wade.  It will happen - but they will NOT get the result they want.

 

The widespread misunderstanding about Roe v. Wade is that the federal government somehow "allows" abortion or "baby murders". Here is the real deal about Roe v. Wade, and what its ruling meant:

 

1. During the first trimester: women decide if they want to have an abortion.

 

2. During the second trimester: individual states decide; every states have different laws on abortion in the second trimester. Some states allow it. Other states do not.

 

3. In the third trimester: the federal government decides, and - surprise, surprise - the federal government decided that the federal standard was to ban abortions in the third trimester.

 

Since the SCOTUS ruled on Roe v. Wade in 1973, new abortion procedures have developed and improved. Nowadays, there are actually advanced and safe medical procedures that can abort a late-term pregnancy in the third trimester. Other countries have allowed and adopted those new procedures. For example, Canada allows abortions in the third and final trimester. However, those late-term procedures have not been allowed into the US because - surprise, surprise - Roe v. Wade does not allow third-trimester abortions.

 

So, if the US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, that means individual states will decide their own abortion laws for all stages of pregnancy. It also means there will no longer be a federal-level ban on third-trimester abortions. Obviously red states will ban abortion in the first trimester, (as well as the second and third.) HOWEVER, without Roe v. Wade holding back blue states like California from adopting late-term abortion procedures, those states will swing the other way and pass laws to permit abortions all the way into the third trimester. Conservatives and Republicans are in a big surprise and rude awakening if they think overturning Roe v. Wade would lead to a nationwide ban of abortion for all trimesters in all states.

 

So what will conservatives, Evangelicals and Republicans react when reality sets in? Without Roe v. Wade, that means states get to decide their own abortion laws.  Are they going to dictate what blue states can or can not do  on abortion even after Roe v. Wade is overturned?  Are they going to declare red states get to decide their state laws on abortion but not blue states?

 

The unexpected outcome of Roe v. Wade will be that third-trimester abortions will become available in the US - albeit in some states but not other. However, a woman will be able to take a bus trip from Arizona to California to abort a pregnancy in the third trimester. So, if abortion right activists want to continue the fight after the demise of Roe v. Wade, here is a suggestion: start an interstate busing program to assist, finance and transport women from red states to blue states for abortions - including third-trimester abortions that will inevitably be permitted in blue states like in Canada. It is certainly easier for women to travel across state lines than into another country like Canada to get an abortion in the third trimester. Seriously, conservatives, Evangelicals and Republicans have seriously misunderstood and miscalculated.

Edited October 5, 2018 by ktchong

[smjjames]

Are they going to dictate what blue states can or can not do  on abortion even after Roe v. Wade is overturned?  Are they going to declare red states get to decide their state laws on abortion but not blue states?

 

I wouldn't be surprised if they attempted to.

 

 

The unexpected outcome of Roe v. Wade will be that third-trimester abortions will become available in the US - albeit in some states but not other. However, a woman will be able to take a bus trip from Arizona to California to abort a pregnancy in the third trimester. So, if abortion right activists want to continue the fight after the demise of Roe v. Wade, here is a suggestion: start an interstate busing program to assist, finance and transport women from red states to blue states for abortions - including third-trimester abortions that will inevitably be permitted in blue states like in Canada. It is certainly easier for women to travel across state lines than into another country like Canada to get an abortion in the third trimester. Seriously, conservatives, Evangelicals and Republicans have seriously misunderstood and miscalculated.

 

Taking a bus trip would only work for those that are both able to afford it in monetary and time cost. Though I guess a program like you mentioned could work.

Edited October 5, 2018 by smjjames

[Malcador]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jason-van-dyke-trial-verdict-reached-murder-trial-chicago-officer-n916716

 

Good thing there was video, especially with the other cops lying to cover him.

[Malcador]

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jason-van-dyke-trial-verdict-reached-murder-trial-chicago-officer-n916716

 

Good thing there was video, especially with the other cops lying to cover him.

So now US bans cops for defending against knife attacks? Good luck.

Blue Lives Matter!

 

 

 

 

Not quite sure what attack there was. Also the cop's testimony that flies in the face of the video probably didn't help him much.

[Guard Dog]

ktchong the odds of Roe being overturned anytime soon are really remote. First off a credible challenge to it would have to be initiated. Someone with standing to actually bring a suit. Rightly or wrongly Roe is about a right to individual privacy that Harry Blackmun somehow found in the Constitution. Since it is a matter of individual privacy the standing issue becomes thorny for anyone wanting to bring a challenge. The only party that can really make a case for having a compelling interest is a state of federal government and, as you pointed out, there are already provisions in the decision for them. 

 

So if someone has standing and can successfully bring a suit it would have to be litigated in Federal court (although it may not start there with would actually lengthen the process) then appealed to the Appellate Court. IF they take it it would have to be re-argued there.  If the Appellate Court upholds the lower court decision the road gets even harder for the losing party. Further appeals might not even be accepted or make it past a review. Since the plaintiff is seeking to overturn a settled law they will have to make a different argument than has been tried and rejected in the past. And they will need to demonstrate that the Court arrived at the wrong conclusion in '73 and that all subsequent defeated challenges were also faulty. And remember, the morality of the issue is completely immaterial. It is not about whether it's right or wrong to abort a baby. It's only about the legality of compelling someone not to.  To say it would be an uphill climb to even get it to the supreme court would be an understatement. I would not lose any sleep worrying about it.

[SonicMage117]

This is too funny but also true lol

Edited October 6, 2018 by SonicMage117

[Volourn]

Does it, though? Dogs are notorious for being whiners.

[smjjames]

This is too funny but also true lol

 

lol....

[Malcador]

 

 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jason-van-dyke-trial-verdict-reached-murder-trial-chicago-officer-n916716

 

Good thing there was video, especially with the other cops lying to cover him.

So now US bans cops for defending against knife attacks? Good luck.

Blue Lives Matter!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MySKxiEtVwY

 

Not quite sure what attack there was. Also the cop's testimony that flies in the face of the video probably didn't help him much.

Don't care. A criminal that destroyed property and was attacking people with a knife came to a natural conclusion of his actions. Police officer was defending society from a menace, he should be awarded. The only thing the cop did wrong is waste so many bullets.

 

Yeah, cops don't carry out execution sentences. They do lie like a mafia to cover themselves though

[HoonDing]

"Yeah, cops don't carry out execution sentences."

 

They do in Trumpland.

[Orogun01]

"Yeah, cops don't carry out execution sentences."

 

They do in Trumpland.

Only in blue states though.

[SonicMage117]

 

"Yeah, cops don't carry out execution sentences."

 

They do in Trumpland.

Only in blue states though.

I can't wait to see how democrats react if Trump gets re-elected

[Volourn]

"They do in Trumpland."

 

yeha, because the whole 'cop issue' started when Trump was elected. LMAO

[Guard Dog]

 

 

"Yeah, cops don't carry out execution sentences."

 

They do in Trumpland.

Only in blue states though.

I can't wait to see how democrats react if Trump gets re-elected

 

  I don't think much of Trump. But i'm not going to like anyone the Donkey's nominate either. So it would almost be worth it just for the laughs at their red faced screaming. 

[Malcador]

"Yeah, cops don't carry out execution sentences."

 

They do in Trumpland.

Well if you mean his fantasy land, maybe. But is probably spread over the US.

[injurai]

Cops don't carry out sentences for executions in the first place, so I can't be sure we are actually talking about anything at all here.

[Volourn]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

 

  The tears are gonna be sweet!

[injurai]

What an Audacious Hoax Reveals About Academia: Three scholars wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/

 

I've been following this the past few days. I absolutely love it. It's like the Sokal affair 2.0.

[ktchong]

This may come as a surprise to you all... but I will either not be voting or voting Republican in the midterm election.

Edited October 6, 2018 by ktchong