Vae on 6/10/2018 at 22:28
Quote Posted by Renzatic
As a logical, freethinking individual unswayed by the emotional bleating of crass propagandists...
: proceeds to sprout propaganda :
That's not propaganda, Renz...This is a well-understood philosophical difference between Conservatives and Progressives.
If the Republicans were to overturn Roe, they would philosophically favor leaving it to the States to decide abortion law.
Combine that with the likelihood of civil war, and it's easy to conclude that we'll never see the national criminalization of abortion in the U.S.
Vae on 6/10/2018 at 22:50
Mitch McConnell Holds Press Conference After Kavanaugh Confirmed To SCOTUS...
[video=youtube;d2oxR7kpuXY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2oxR7kpuXY[/video]
Renzatic on 6/10/2018 at 22:51
Quote Posted by Vae
That's not propaganda, Renz...
It's propaganda, Vae. Worded the exact same way a thousand other conservative sites choose to word it.
Republicans are generally pro-states right only when it's convenient to them. Abortion issues, gay marriage, etc. etc., they're all for leaving the federal government out of it. When states rights are used to justify one of their bugbears, like marijuana legalization, or immigration issues, they're ready to roll out the national guard.
Vae on 6/10/2018 at 23:08
Immigration is a national border issue, that's why it applies to the federal level...the same goes for illegal drugs being transported across the border.
Abortion issues, gay marriage, etc., are exclusively internal domestic issues...that's why Conservatives philosophically believe that States' Rights should take precedence in regards to abortion.
So, it's philosophy, not propaganda...Know the difference, or be confused.
Renzatic on 6/10/2018 at 23:23
So what you're saying is that the federal government has every right to determine what people put into their body, but should have no legal authority over what people do to their body? Speaking out of both sides of your mouth on this one, aren't you? If you were honest in your position, you'd consider both overbearing examples of government authoritarianism, and suggest both become issues left entirely to the discretion of the states.
And gay marriage isn't an exclusively internal domestic issue. They cover everything from tax breaks to to insurance advantages to visitation rights in hospitals, meaning that it's an important part of everyone's lives. If you left that decision entirely up to the states, you'd have situations where one group of people would have nationally recognized marriage licenses, while others would only have their marriage licenses, and the issues pertaining to them, valid only in certain locations and circumstances. The end result would mean you've effectively created an environment where some US citizens would have more rights, boons, and freedoms than other US citizens, which is unconstitutional.
Vae on 6/10/2018 at 23:36
This is a good topic, and I'll respond to it when I get back...Right now, I have to take off, so talk to you guys later...:)
icemann on 7/10/2018 at 02:45
The "MeToo" movement has REALLY jumped on this one, with loud cries from actual victims of "but he did do it. He's guilty." Saw bits on that on the news a few days ago.
And that as I stated earlier is why you never allow the media and/or public know of these matters until a verdict has been made, and only if its a guilty verdict. QUITE a few people have completely made their minds up on him already, regardless of the facts. Eg was watching Allen midday earlier in the week and she said some things.
Pyrian on 7/10/2018 at 03:58
Not down with special protections for those accused of particularly heinous crimes which don't apply to anything else. The court of public opinion is our right as far as I'm concerned. All that "until proven guilty" applies to due process, not whether I have to believe - or even be allowed to know about - a perjurer.
rachel on 7/10/2018 at 09:58
Exactly, IANAL, etc. but it's my understanding that presumption of innocence really only applies to criminal prosecution where you have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Take O.J. Simpson for example: there's massive indications that he committed the murders, hell, he pretty much admitted it himself, but he walked out. The courts didn't say he was innocent, they failed to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This doesn't prevent a shitload of people from thinking he did it.
The nomination was not a trial, it was a glorified job interview. I don't know that Kavanaugh did what he was accused of, but they didn't have to prove anything. At this level, you must show excellent references and impeccable character. I think he very clearly failed to meet the expected standards and he also appeared shifty and willing to bend facts when it was politically convenient. Not to mention how rushed the whole process was, of course.
It's obvious Republicans don't even care about keeping appearances any longer, anything goes now. Trump is what he is, but McConnell will be remembered as the undertaker who enabled it all. He seems bent on demolishing the institutions for his and his friends' personal gain, US citizens be damned. The damage he and his cronies are doing will take decades to fix.