posted by CenterBHSFan

By all means, if you are content or comfortable being stuck in that rut, more power to you. 

American history is changed by grassroots efforts within the two party system. It is not from some mythical third party or write in candidates. But, keep wasting your time. 

Want change? Work within the two party system. Look at Trump. He has completely changed the Republican party, from within. 

posted by geeblock

Putting me in a category with QO was not  a compliment. No offense QO. 😂

So you believe I said you weren’t intelligent, then do basically that to QO? Well that’s interesting I guess.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

American history is changed by grassroots efforts within the two party system. It is not from some mythical third party or write in candidates. But, keep wasting your time. 

Want change? Work within the two party system. Look at Trump. He has completely changed the Republican party, from within. 

Ptown isn’t wrong. The only time in the last 112 years a non-D or R got more than 10% was Perot.

So once in well over 100 years did anyone not an R or D even get more than 10%.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

American history is changed by grassroots efforts within the two party system. It is not from some mythical third party or write in candidates. But, keep wasting your time. 

Want change? Work within the two party system. Look at Trump. He has completely changed the Republican party, from within. 

Ptown isn’t wrong. The only time in the last 112 years a non-D or R got more than 10% was Perot.

So once in well over 100 years did anyone not an R or D even get more than 10%.

This Supreme Court ruling in Arizona based upon a law supposedly from 1864 when Arizona was not even a state is a prime reason the gop will lose Arizona and this election. 

I used to not vote because I truly thought it didn’t matter. I never imagined they would try to fight roe vs wade. Now it looks like they want to go after IVF and regular forms of contraception? 

I’m all for less govt, not more govt. we don’t need more laws 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

American history is changed by grassroots efforts within the two party system. It is not from some mythical third party or write in candidates. But, keep wasting your time. 

Want change? Work within the two party system. Look at Trump. He has completely changed the Republican party, from within. 

I think it's pretty obvious to everyone, and I mean everyone, that any criticisms, any unorthodox suggestions, any alternative viewpoints/suggestions gets people labeled;

- racist

- sexist

- whatever "phobe" is popular

- right winger

- conservative

The list can go on and on, but those are the most prevalent names people get called when they say anything. It happens in DC, medias and even here. Like I said before the Dems aren't red-pilling anybody - but they've got people licking those pills to see what they taste like. That is why I think the best thing people can do is to just leave Republicans and Democrats alone. Fuck'em. Go somewhere else. I did and I think that, not only am I happier to not buy into them, but it gives people like me much more freedom to build with other tools. 

posted by geeblock

This Supreme Court ruling in Arizona based upon a law supposedly from 1864 when Arizona was not even a state is a prime reason the gop will lose Arizona and this election. 

I used to not vote because I truly thought it didn’t matter. I never imagined they would try to fight roe vs wade. Now it looks like they want to go after IVF and regular forms of contraception? 

I’m all for less govt, not more govt. we don’t need more laws 

Did you actually read the decision or just go off what people said?

The Supreme Court ruling stated that the new law from 2022, which enacted a ban passed 15 weeks except in case of life/death of mother, didn't have the proper language to overthrow the 1864 law. They basically said the legislature needs to write the law better and/or merge the 2.

They didn't say they agree with the 1864 law, they said the new one doesn't have the proper language to repeal the 1864 law.  

This is a legislature problem is what they are saying, that is all. No one said "yeah, lets put all abortion doctors in jail". 

The language will be fixed and the 2022 law will be the law for Arizona eventually.

And what's this about IVF? The Rs in Congress have stated they are for IVF but are divided on what the right way the government should protect it. They aren't trying to end IVF or other forms of contraceptives. That hasn't been on anyone's radar that I am aware of, but please provide a link.

posted by jmog

Did you actually read the decision or just go off what people said?

The Supreme Court ruling stated that the new law from 2022, which enacted a ban passed 15 weeks except in case of life/death of mother, didn't have the proper language to overthrow the 1864 law. They basically said the legislature needs to write the law better and/or merge the 2.

They didn't say they agree with the 1864 law, they said the new one doesn't have the proper language to repeal the 1864 law.  

This is a legislature problem is what they are saying, that is all. No one said "yeah, lets put all abortion doctors in jail". 

The language will be fixed and the 2022 law will be the law for Arizona eventually.

And what's this about IVF? The Rs in Congress have stated they are for IVF but are divided on what the right way the government should protect it. They aren't trying to end IVF or other forms of contraceptives. That hasn't been on anyone's radar that I am aware of, but please provide a link.

IVF is currently off the table in Alabama as far as i know?

The Right to contraception act is being targeted in Virginia.

I dont have time today to find links for you and I could care less to argue about it.

posted by geeblock

IVF is currently off the table in Alabama as far as i know?

The Right to contraception act is being targeted in Virginia.

I dont have time today to find links for you and I could care less to argue about it.

IVF is not off the table in Alabama, that was headline fodder. People being allowed to sue over embryos lost in a fire for liability is not the same as Rs going after IVF. That is a civil matter and should be covered under liability insurance and/or contracts between the facility and the clients.

Someone sued an IVF clinic for destroyed embryos, then Alabama, one of the most conservative states in the country, passed and signed a new law protecting IVF clinics from future criminal and civil suits.

It was passed by a R controlled state house and senate and signed by an R governor.

I mean you say you hate the phrase "tow the line" but then you say something like "Rs are going after IVF and its off the table in Alabama", when in fact Rs in Alabama passed legislation protecting IVF facilities from future criminal and civil legal issues, its like you just regurgitate what MSNBC told you to believe a month ago and never followed up to see what really is going on in that particular topic. 

The SCOTUS has already ruled on right to contraceptives in Griswold vs Conn (1965) and Eisenstadt v Baird (1972) so no one is going after contraceptives. The Virginia law that was passed by its legislature went a step further from giving people the right to access contraceptives, as everyone in the US currently has, and the governor amended it and sent it back to be closer to what the SCOTUS already ruled on (you know, you can have access but you can't force others to have to pay for it if it goes against their religion).

Everyone in the US has a right to contraceptives, 60 years of Supreme Court precedent would have to be overturned to change that. Making other people pay for your contraceptives is what many of the Rs are fighting against. I don't know anyone that has said "make the pill illegal".

I understand you don't want to provide links because reading passed the "gotcha" headline usually doesn't bode well for you, kind of like the Arizona Supreme Court and Alabama IVF topics.

That sounds like the opposite of "Rs going after IVF", but once someone reads past the MSNBC "gotcha" headline facts come into play

posted by jmog

IVF is not off the table in Alabama, that was headline fodder. People being allowed to sue over embryos lost in a fire for liability is not the same as Rs going after IVF. That is a civil matter and should be covered under liability insurance and/or contracts between the facility and the clients.

Someone sued an IVF clinic for destroyed embryos, then Alabama, one of the most conservative states in the country, passed and signed a new law protecting IVF clinics from future criminal and civil suits.

It was passed by a R controlled state house and senate and signed by an R governor.

I mean you say you hate the phrase "tow the line" but then you say something like "Rs are going after IVF and its off the table in Alabama", when in fact Rs in Alabama passed legislation protecting IVF facilities from future criminal and civil legal issues, its like you just regurgitate what MSNBC told you to believe a month ago and never followed up to see what really is going on in that particular topic. 

The SCOTUS has already ruled on right to contraceptives in Griswold vs Conn (1965) and Eisenstadt v Baird (1972) so no one is going after contraceptives. The Virginia law that was passed by its legislature went a step further from giving people the right to access contraceptives, as everyone in the US currently has, and the governor amended it and sent it back to be closer to what the SCOTUS already ruled on (you know, you can have access but you can't force others to have to pay for it if it goes against their religion).

Everyone in the US has a right to contraceptives, 60 years of Supreme Court precedent would have to be overturned to change that. Making other people pay for your contraceptives is what many of the Rs are fighting against. I don't know anyone that has said "make the pill illegal".

I understand you don't want to provide links because reading passed the "gotcha" headline usually doesn't bode well for you, kind of like the Arizona Supreme Court and Alabama IVF topics.

That sounds like the opposite of "Rs going after IVF", but once someone reads past the MSNBC "gotcha" headline facts come into play

Huh?  The court ruled that the embryos were actual children, so that means that the clinic would be possibly responsible for thousands of Murders if something would happen to the embryos in their clinics which effectively closed clinics in Alabama. yes they fixed it after outcry.

In Virginia, as they passed their contraception bill on I think 4/8 they changed a few things at the last minute leaving the door open to effectively limit its effectiveness later.  

He gutted Virginia’s bipartisan Right to Contraception Act by: 1. Converting it from a legal mandate to a mere suggestion 2. Removing the definition of contraception so that he can enforce it anyway he wants 3. Making the whole act time limited

You said the same thing when we were discussing roe vs. wade and yet here we are.

I havent read all of the opinions but if it was 4-2 then it was probably not something that had to be done in arizona.  When I brought up Arizona it wasn't necessarily about the court and their ruling, but rather the group that brought the court case, which I assume is GOP. It literally makes it worse because they make a legal move to subvert the will of the voters in their state which already have decided through voting or their elected representatives to come up with a more moderate abortion law.

In totality my point stands, that in an election year this is a terrible strategy and optics that is going to cost them states and possibly the election.

posted by geeblock

Huh?  The court ruled that the embryos were actual children, so that means that the clinic would be possibly responsible for thousands of Murders if something would happen to the embryos in their clinics which effectively closed clinics in Alabama. yes they fixed it after outcry.

In Virginia, as they passed their contraception bill on I think 4/8 they changed a few things at the last minute leaving the door open to effectively limit its effectiveness later.  

He gutted Virginia’s bipartisan Right to Contraception Act by: 1. Converting it from a legal mandate to a mere suggestion 2. Removing the definition of contraception so that he can enforce it anyway he wants 3. Making the whole act time limited

You said the same thing when we were discussing roe vs. wade and yet here we are.

I havent read all of the opinions but if it was 4-2 then it was probably not something that had to be done in arizona.  When I brought up Arizona it wasn't necessarily about the court and their ruling, but rather the group that brought the court case, which I assume is GOP. It literally makes it worse because they make a legal move to subvert the will of the voters in their state which already have decided through voting or their elected representatives to come up with a more moderate abortion law.

In totality my point stands, that in an election year this is a terrible strategy and optics that is going to cost them states and possibly the election.

In totality your points have been proven wrong.

The GOP did not go after IVF, the GOP actually passed laws in Alabama to protect it. 

The Arizona SC only claimed that the law passed in 2022 didn't have the right language to repeal the 1864 law and pushed it back on the legislature to fix the language issue. 

The Virginia law was attempting to go further than current US law, which is obviously ok to do in this case, and the governor sent it back with the language stripped out that could force companies to pay for contraceptives even if they are religiously against it. 

That is not an attack on people's rights to obtain contraceptives. No one is saying you can't buy contraceptives yourself, they are saying you probably can't force someone else to pay for them in your insurance plan.

posted by jmog

In totality your points have been proven wrong.

The GOP did not go after IVF, the GOP actually passed laws in Alabama to protect it. 

The Arizona SC only claimed that the law passed in 2022 didn't have the right language to repeal the 1864 law and pushed it back on the legislature to fix the language issue. 

The Virginia law was attempting to go further than current US law, which is obviously ok to do in this case, and the governor sent it back with the language stripped out that could force companies to pay for contraceptives even if they are religiously against it. 

That is not an attack on people's rights to obtain contraceptives. No one is saying you can't buy contraceptives yourself, they are saying you probably can't force someone else to pay for them in your insurance plan.

lol if you think it’s a good strategy god bless. I guess we will revisit this in December and see how it works out 

this is exactly what i said yesterday so not completely wrong.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/abortion-ruling-full-disaster-arizona-201320568.html

posted by geeblock

lol if you think it’s a good strategy god bless. I guess we will revisit this in December and see how it works out 

this is exactly what i said yesterday so not completely wrong.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/abortion-ruling-full-disaster-arizona-201320568.html

You have repeatedly, in this thread, stated things that are not factually true.

Now you just want to play it off like “well we’ll see how it works come November”.

Are you not interested in factual reality and being an informed voter? 

Or you just keep planning on towing the D party line and believe what they tell you to believe?

posted by jmog

You have repeatedly, in this thread, stated things that are not factually true.

Now you just want to play it off like “well we’ll see how it works come November”.

Are you not interested in factual reality and being an informed voter? 

Or you just keep planning on towing the D party line and believe what they tell you to believe?

Im pro-choice as is 80% of the country.  There is only one party trying to ban abortion, no matter how you try to define the current legal wrangling they are doing.  I'll vote for the other party.  I think others will to. I hope this helps you understand.  Have a good rest of your day.

I do have a question that i havent been able to find the answer to regarding the Arizona court decision maybe someone here knows.

Did they have to hear this case and make a decision on it this year?  Could it have been delayed?  When exactly was this case filed and by who? Thanks if anyone knows the answer.

posted by geeblock

Im pro-choice as is 80% of the country.  There is only one party trying to ban abortion, no matter how you try to define the current legal wrangling they are doing.  I'll vote for the other party.  I think others will to. I hope this helps you understand.  Have a good rest of your day.

So you say things that are provably false, then just back up and say "well that doesn't matter because 80% of the people agree with my stance" which is also provably false.

I mean depending on which statistical survey you look at, its 52-55%, no where close to 80%.

Is it your modus operandi to just spew things that take 5 seconds on google to prove wrong?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx

https://news.gallup.com/poll/393104/pro-choice-identification-rises-near-record-high.aspx

https://www.statista.com/statistics/225975/share-of-americans-who-are-pro-life-or-pro-choice/

posted by jmog

So you say things that are provably false, then just back up and say "well that doesn't matter because 80% of the people agree with my stance" which is also provably false.

I mean depending on which statistical survey you look at, its 52-55%, no where close to 80%.

Is it your modus operandi to just spew things that take 5 seconds on google to prove wrong?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx

https://news.gallup.com/poll/393104/pro-choice-identification-rises-near-record-high.aspx

https://www.statista.com/statistics/225975/share-of-americans-who-are-pro-life-or-pro-choice/

Some of your data is well before roe vs wade was taken away but ok (2018). That being said 80% was just a random number I picked I probably should have looked it up 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/06/26/how-americans-really-feel-about-abortion-the-sometimes-surprising-poll-results-one-year-after-roe-overturned/?sh=5220202c5ea3

posted by geeblock

Some of your data is well before roe vs wade was taken away but ok (2018)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/06/26/how-americans-really-feel-about-abortion-the-sometimes-surprising-poll-results-one-year-after-roe-overturned/?sh=5220202c5ea3

You do realize that 99% of people view "pro-choice" and "legal in certain circumstances" as different things right?

Your "80%" is the "legal in certain circumstance" which most people take as rape, incest, life/death of mother. You assumed that was "well look, they are all pro-choice".

When pro-choice or pro-life is asked, even after the SC ruling, its still 52-55%, so again, you have been proven wrong. 

My first link is 2023 data (not 2018, the original article was 2018, the data was updated with 2023, its literally in the chart the poll was from May 1-24, 2023).

My second link goes up to 2022 data.

My third link goes up to 2023 data.

Again you looked at the headline, didn't read the article. You make proving you wrong way too easy. 

Wonderful! The ruiners are back. 

posted by jmog

You do realize that 99% of people view "pro-choice" and "legal in certain circumstances" as different things right?

Your "80%" is the "legal in certain circumstance" which most people take as rape, incest, life/death of mother. You assumed that was "well look, they are all pro-choice".

When pro-choice or pro-life is asked, even after the SC ruling, its still 52-55%, so again, you have been proven wrong. 

My first link is 2023 data (not 2018, the original article was 2018, the data was updated with 2023, its literally in the chart the poll was from May 1-24, 2023).

My second link goes up to 2022 data.

My third link goes up to 2023 data.

Again you looked at the headline, didn't read the article. You make proving you wrong way too easy. 

Why would I read an article from 2018? lol 

So now u move the goal post to say that it is 80% which is what i said. The Arizona current law makes no exceptions btw.

 (Edit to say except for death so u don’t not answer my question and focus on that. No exceptions for rape etc. I’m also fine to say “most” in place of arguing percentages. It doesn’t change my point)

Just stop trying to defend the GOP ruining their party and their platform. 

U can nit pick all you want. It changes absolutely nothing about what I said. Which is funny as usual you actually never address a topic. You just dissect any facts u can find to disagree with without addressing the conversation. 

I said the gop is in trouble and will lose states and votes due to unpopular laws being introduced with women’s reproductive rights and its abortion laws no one wants. Do you disagree or not? 

Jesus man lol 

They’ll get to an agreement on this one. I’m certain of it. 

posted by geeblock

Why would I read an article from 2018? lol 

So now u move the goal post to say that it is 80% which is what i said. The Arizona current law makes no exceptions btw.

 (Edit to say except for death so u don’t not answer my question and focus on that. No exceptions for rape etc. I’m also fine to say “most” in place of arguing percentages. It doesn’t change my point)

Just stop trying to defend the GOP ruining their party and their platform. 

U can nit pick all you want. It changes absolutely nothing about what I said. Which is funny as usual you actually never address a topic. You just dissect any facts u can find to disagree with without addressing the conversation. 

I said the gop is in trouble and will lose states and votes due to unpopular laws being introduced with women’s reproductive rights and its abortion laws no one wants. Do you disagree or not? 

Jesus man lol 

I moved no goalposts. You miss characterized what the 80% is/was. So you either didn't understand your own link or you lied, you choose.

I am defending no one, I am just stating factual information actually stated in articles, even ones you linked but didn't read or understand. 

If facts sound like "defending the GOP" to you then maybe the facts don't line up with your belief system. I can't help that.

I addressed the actual topics by correcting false information portrayed. I didn't give my opinion on the rulings, just gave what the facts actually are. I actually think the ASC probably made a mistake, but still understand that what is being portrayed is actually incorrect on what was actually done. 

Same with your IVF "misunderstanding", I just corrected with factual information. You, again, portrayed something that was wrong based on a knowledge that can only be gained by reading headlines only or believing whatever MSNBC told you to believe and never following up to gain more knowledge.

You have basically proven you are the QO of the left on this board, you just won't admit it. You believe gotcha headlines and don't dig into any of them to gain valuable information.

You were 100% wrong about the links I provided and proved you don't even read shit, all of them had data and statistics from 2022/2023, after the SCOTUS decision, yet you said "some of your links don't even have new data" or whatever. Then when I prove you wrong you just resort to "why would I read an article from 2018", when the link is literally just a data set with a table from 2023, the URL just said 2018, there was no written article.

You are just proving over and over again to be someone who doesn't want to add any new information to your synapses, especially if it has a possibility to be different from what you have been fed from the left. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

They’ll get to an agreement on this one. I’m certain of it. 

I'd say this would be one of those site updates that always is projected to happen Wednesday, but since this be Wednesday, I guess I probably shouldn't hold my breath.

posted by jmog

You do realize that 99% of people view "pro-choice" and "legal in certain circumstances" as different things right?

Your "80%" is the "legal in certain circumstance" which most people take as rape, incest, life/death of mother. You assumed that was "well look, they are all pro-choice".

When pro-choice or pro-life is asked, even after the SC ruling, its still 52-55%, so again, you have been proven wrong. 

My first link is 2023 data (not 2018, the original article was 2018, the data was updated with 2023, its literally in the chart the poll was from May 1-24, 2023).

My second link goes up to 2022 data.

My third link goes up to 2023 data.

Again you looked at the headline, didn't read the article. You make proving you wrong way too easy. 

You can use polling all you want, but state after state is voting to enshrine abortion as an option by more than 52%.

Even here in Ohio. It wasn't even close. 

The old model and arguments about the issue are gone. Now, people are really talking about and realizing oh, those options are terrible and should be there. 

The other problem that still is unknown is where exactly is the line on the "health of the mother". The Texas example being the biggest as the woman had to go out of state after the Texas Supreme Court ruled she cannot have an abortion as it did not qualify under health of the mother even though her doctors said it did. The Texas AG has threatened to sue and remove any doctor that performs one unless it adheres to their definition of health of the mother. 

It was also funny how quickly Arizona Republicans even said yesterday, oh that is too far. Yet, 2 years ago, they were in favor of something similar. I also think it may impact the Senate and Presidental race as the issue will be on the ballot in November. Wouldn't be surprised if Biden wins AZ again now the Ds hold onto the Senate seat. 

I'd finally say the right has a policy issue on this that they still have not figured out. The backlash from the extreme pro life side to Trumps statement being one example and the whole personhood movement being the other.

posted by jmog

I moved no goalposts. You miss characterized what the 80% is/was. So you either didn't understand your own link or you lied, you choose.

I am defending no one, I am just stating factual information actually stated in articles, even ones you linked but didn't read or understand. 

If facts sound like "defending the GOP" to you then maybe the facts don't line up with your belief system. I can't help that.

I addressed the actual topics by correcting false information portrayed. I didn't give my opinion on the rulings, just gave what the facts actually are. I actually think the ASC probably made a mistake, but still understand that what is being portrayed is actually incorrect on what was actually done. 

Same with your IVF "misunderstanding", I just corrected with factual information. You, again, portrayed something that was wrong based on a knowledge that can only be gained by reading headlines only or believing whatever MSNBC told you to believe and never following up to gain more knowledge.

You have basically proven you are the QO of the left on this board, you just won't admit it. You believe gotcha headlines and don't dig into any of them to gain valuable information.

You were 100% wrong about the links I provided and proved you don't even read shit, all of them had data and statistics from 2022/2023, after the SCOTUS decision, yet you said "some of your links don't even have new data" or whatever. Then when I prove you wrong you just resort to "why would I read an article from 2018", when the link is literally just a data set with a table from 2023, the URL just said 2018, there was no written article.

You are just proving over and over again to be someone who doesn't want to add any new information to your synapses, especially if it has a possibility to be different from what you have been fed from the left. 

This is why I think you don’t actually read my posts. I didn’t ask for your opinion on the rulings. I said the ruling/combimed with other attacks on women’s reproductive rights such as roe wade ect.. would have a negative effect on the GOP in AZ and in the presidential election and would cause them to lose. That’s it that’s the post. You can choose to respond to that or not. 

The rest is just anger because I think you realize it’s probably true. 

I appreciated the clarification about the ASC ruling which is why I asked further questions about it which were ignored, because you don’t want to discuss things you just like to argue and be right. 

If the ASC tried to shoe this in before the people could vote again like Ohio GOP tried to throw in that rushed referendum after saying they wouldn’t do those anymore that changes my perception on what actually happened. You make it seem innocent and maybe rhey were just following the law, or were they trying to get the more restrictive law in place and then negotiate from that much stronger position before people could vote.