Jump to content

ChuckNorrisActionJeans

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    1636
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ChuckNorrisActionJeans

  1. The problem in Texas isn't so much the people who vote as it is all those who don't. This is the hardest state in which to vote (obv. by design). And has the lowest voter participation rate (as a result), from what I've read. And there are a fuck-ton more urban poor people here than there are in Kansas, for instance, who are barely surviving and couldn't be less politically engaged. No FW:FW:FW's in the living hand-to-mouth and barely staying out of jail segment. Mobilize a bunch more of the don't-vote segment of Texas and we coast to a purple or even blue future. Overcoming any burgeoning valley Republican contingent not included in this .
  2. Everyone with eyes could see the chicanery coming like a slow-motion train wreck back when he installed Patel and Miller after losing the election. JFC
  3. on a Mexican woah-oh radio
  4. As far as funerals, maybe the coward read the room. At least one of the families didn't want him there because their slain daughter didn't like him. Smart girl.
  5. Ok but don't shoot the messenger https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3579355-those-who-see-roes-fall-as-loss-less-likely-to-vote-than-those-who-dont-poll/ Washington Post- Schar School poll
  6. People who don't like the Dobbs decision (striking down Roe) are less likely to vote than those who like it.... that's the takeaway
  7. Not going to search for it, but a recent poll summarized in an article said that those who believe SCOTUS striking down Roe is a "loss" are less likely to vote than those who don't believe that. (Or maybe, it should have just been summarized as "evangelicals vote more consistently than other groups.") Womp womp
  8. this thread being bumped almost makes me wish it was for shootings rather than this endless masturbatory gun stroking bro talk...almost
  9. You know this but the broader point is this: one could reasonably hold a view that there should be a balancing of rights, and by that I mean that at some stage there should be a consideration of society's interest in fetal life vs. the mother's rights. But that is gone because SCOTUS said the mother has NO rights in this area. None. No right to privacy, or medical care, or bodily autonomy -- only what the state deigns to confer. So now, there is no balancing in red states. So it's not only that that the rights of a fetus are equal to those of the mother. Which is outrageous enough. These extreme laws dictate that the fetus's rights, whether its life is even viable or not, are SUPERIOR to the human who is independently breathing, walking, thinking, whose body is used to sustain said fetus, and who is a citizen or resident who presumably is allowed legal protections against unreasonable search and seizure, and all that other good constitutional stuff. But if a fetus or embryo exists, the carrier is excluded from making any decisions impacting her very life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness based on the arbitrary state borders in which she lives. Anyone who isn't screaming against this insanity is complicit.
  10. Fetus ain't got no perspective. It fetus. No think. No breathe. No care. No talk. No walk. If you like your fetus, you can keep your fetus.
  11. Think y'all got it but just to clarify, my post was not assigning blame to docs/hospitals, or saying the onus should be on them but in cases like the above the R's have brought it to that absurd point -- despite Ana's mischaracterization to the contrary
  12. Alison Moyet -- surprises me she hasn't had more of a career K.D. Lang Bjork Joni
  13. It's absurd that it's come to this, but doctors and hospitals need to have some courage to push back against delaying proper, life-saving care regarding UNVIABLE embryos. FFS. Save the patient's life and dare the asshole DA to prosecute. Make this shit come to a head.
  14. This shit is just sadistic and insane. How do these extreme laws benefit anyone, including even the vaunted fetus? How?? It's just an exercise in monstrousness with no redeeming feature, an abomination before God, if you will. A woman in this situation needs to video the whole ordeal and publish it to multiple platforms, I think that's the only way to get through to the shitheads who can't imagine not pulling the R lever.
  15. Next up on Tucker Incel: Should Women be Allowed to Have Bodies?
  16. Question.... is there an ongoing duty to cooperate? Or does his conviction effectively nullify the subpoenas? If they still want his cooperation do they just reissue the subpoenas to avoid potential double jeopardy? No idea in this area of law.
  17. hmmm who is big sexy to the right behind Pottinger
  18. I'm dumb but is that pretzel on his belt intentional?
  19. and I'm still waiting for the Gaetz indictment that was "imminent" a year ago. Every time I see that freak's name, it occurs to me how impossibly high a standard probable cause must be. I'd better get some continuing ed. on that point '
  20. still blows my mind that, in nationally televised hearings, he publicly vowed vengeance against those he perceived as political detractors/opponents... and also specifically mentioned the Clintons. That shit was barely even talked about 2 days later.
  21. https://twitter.com/Maxxie11G/status/1547301280028262400?s=20&t=C0X3o4WhMMhARXmB68OPOQ
×
×
  • Create New...