Jpizzle

Not the new Donald Trump Presidency thread

72,222 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, Jpowers said:

Jesus the irony is thick up in here.

tbf, I haven't been able to get a single liberal on here to admit that Trump acted the way he did with Putin because he wanted the Russiagate coverage to fixate on that relationship. It's like trying to get wfw to talk about what Reagan did to Central America. It's like the words don't even exist to have the conversation once it gets to a certain point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Democrats expect their appointed judges to rule with their party, not the law/Constitution.

Republicans expect their judges to rule with the law/Constitution. 

Gorsuch/Kavanaugh disagreed on three separate rulings in one days...Trump, job well done.

Wokezone likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JDaveG said:

The murder statute does not use the word "person" in connection with the victim.  

Well except in the title (crimes against persons), which is not dispositive of anything.

Neither do any of the other the homicide statutes except in the sole case of prompting someone else to commit suicide.  So murder charges could theoretically be brought (one can indict a ham sandwich after all), but they will go literally nowhere, which is probably the biggest reason they almost certainly will not be brought.

Stop believing the lies.

Now this is some serious politician speak lol

The heartbeat bill defines 6 week old fetuses as legally people, specifically stating that they're human beings. Murder is legally defined as causing the death of another human being with premeditated motives (or something to that extent). Doesn't take a legal scholar to put two and two together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Democrats expect their appointed judges to rule with their party, not the law/Constitution.

Republicans expect their judges to rule with the law/Constitution. 

Gorsuch/Kavanaugh disagreed on three separate rulings in one days...Trump, job well done.

As I say every time this rightist mantra is brought up:

We have our interpretation of the 2nd Amendment because conservative justices decided a comma doesn't do what it does.

Optimus_Cr1m35 and bdog 29 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Serge said:

tbf, I haven't been able to get a single liberal on here to admit that Trump acted the way he did with Putin because he wanted the Russiagate coverage to fixate on that relationship. It's like trying to get wfw to talk about what Reagan did to Central America. It's like the words don't even exist to have the conversation once it gets to a certain point.

Have you got a single liberal to admit there was a Russian hoax, that the FISA warrants we're obtained under false pretenses, I could go on. 

If you would even attemp that with any results/sincerity you might get the liberals to address bhow Trump acted.

And I am one of the few true moderates that are still on here defending Trump. WFW more balls than any one man should have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

As I say every time this rightist mantra is brought up:

We have our interpretation of the 2nd Amendment because conservative justices decided a comma doesn't do what it does.

At least you admit my premise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

At least you admit my premise.

"Conservatives expect their judges to rule by the Constitution!"

Here's an example of them making **** up to redefine the Constitution.

"Thank you for admitting I'm right."

Optimus_Cr1m35 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Serge said:

tbf, I haven't been able to get a single liberal on here to admit that Trump acted the way he did with Putin because he wanted the Russiagate coverage to fixate on that relationship. It's like trying to get wfw to talk about what Reagan did to Central America. It's like the words don't even exist to have the conversation once it gets to a certain point.

 

2 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Have you got a single liberal to admit there was a Russian hoax, that the FISA warrants we're obtained under false pretenses, I could go on. 

If you would even attemp that with any results/sincerity you might get the liberals to address bhow Trump acted.

And I am one of the few true moderates that are still on here defending Trump. WFW more balls than any one man should have.

I haven't gotten a conservative to admit it, either, but they're not supposed to admit that Trump has a mutually beneficial relationship with the liberal media. That's why wfw has to keep acting like Trump didn't want this, it just happened the way it did because the liberal media is out to get Trump.

Liberals ought to be able to admit it, but the liberal media calls him pure evil or pure stupid whenever they don't want to explain what he's up to, and it's harder to admit you've been bamboozled if you spent any amount of time laughing at his misspelled tweets.

And FTR, wfw, I'm criticizing both sides; you don't criticize conservatives even when you explicitly disagree with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Now this is some serious politician speak lol

The heartbeat bill defines 6 week old fetuses as legally people, specifically stating that they're human beings. Murder is legally defined as causing the death of another human being with premeditated motives (or something to that extent). Doesn't take a legal scholar to put two and two together.

Even Snopes, who once fact checked a satire site, says you're wrong (while quoting legal scholars no less).

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/georgia-abortion-law/

The gist of Carlson's commentary on this is simple -- the status quo of the abortion law is that women cannot be prosecuted, murder convictions could be sought by overzealous prosecutors but the legislative intent would be factored in, and women almost certainly will not be subject to prosecution over miscarriages.  Here is their conclusion in its entirety:

"Conclusion

Ultimately, the potential effects and consequences of HB 481 will have to be adjudicated in court. For its part, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) vowed even before Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp signed the law that the organization would challenge HB 481 in court.

The arguments made by Stern and others certainly have merit, and as Carlson points out, the legislation’s declaration of fetal personhood “carries significant legal implications.” However, some observers have made several assertions with a level of certainty that simply is not warranted, at this stage. This includes Slate‘s headline claim that under HB 481 “Women Who Terminate Their Pregnancies Would Receive Life in Prison.” That outcome cannot reasonably be stated as fact, before a court has taken even a preliminary look at HB 481, and before the law has gone into effect.

Similarly, the claim made by Alexis Isabel in her viral tweet that HB 481 had “imposed life imprisonment and possibly the death penalty for women who obtain abortions or miscarry” is an overstatement of the reality.

In fact, Georgia had declared unborn children to be persons, something that may or may not open up the possibility of murder prosecution against those who intentionally end the life of a fetus, or second-degree murder prosecution for those who act recklessly with the result of ending the life of a fetus. And in order for HB 481 to have the effect of leaving women open to prosecution for self-administering abortifacients, a court would likely have to overturn decades of precedent that have interpreted Georgia law to mean women cannot be criminalized for their own actions in securing abortions."

I mean, if people were saying "well, it's possible this could happen, have you accounted for that?" it would be one thing.  That's not what you and Slate and the other liars you are listening to are saying though.  You're saying the law provides that women will be prosecuted for seeking abortions.  Here is your quote:

1 hour ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Oh, please. It expressly calls for the prosecution of women who obtain an abortion past the six weeks or goes out of state to get one.

"Expressly."

That quote is a load of horse ****.  And now you know better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jpowers said:

Got people ****ting on biscuits and now other folks ****ting on their hands. We are off to a great start.

Well, the thread isn't six weeks old yet so we have options.

JDaveG, Serge, Wokezone and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Boner said:

I'm glad jdave is back.  I love you, jdave!

Probably not for long.  But yeah......new thread, new leaf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

Even Snopes, who once fact checked a satire site, quoting legal scholars no less, says you're wrong.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/georgia-abortion-law/

The gist of Carlson's commentary on this is simple -- the status quo of the abortion law is that women cannot be prosecuted, murder convictions could be sought by overzealous prosecutors but the legislative intent would be factored in, and women almost certainly will not be subject to prosecution over miscarriages.  Here is their conclusion in its entirety:

"Conclusion

Ultimately, the potential effects and consequences of HB 481 will have to be adjudicated in court. For its part, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) vowed even before Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp signed the law that the organization would challenge HB 481 in court.

The arguments made by Stern and others certainly have merit, and as Carlson points out, the legislation’s declaration of fetal personhood “carries significant legal implications.” However, some observers have made several assertions with a level of certainty that simply is not warranted, at this stage. This includes Slate‘s headline claim that under HB 481 “Women Who Terminate Their Pregnancies Would Receive Life in Prison.” That outcome cannot reasonably be stated as fact, before a court has taken even a preliminary look at HB 481, and before the law has gone into effect.

Similarly, the claim made by Alexis Isabel in her viral tweet that HB 481 had “imposed life imprisonment and possibly the death penalty for women who obtain abortions or miscarry” is an overstatement of the reality.

In fact, Georgia had declared unborn children to be persons, something that may or may not open up the possibility of murder prosecution against those who intentionally end the life of a fetus, or second-degree murder prosecution for those who act recklessly with the result of ending the life of a fetus. And in order for HB 481 to have the effect of leaving women open to prosecution for self-administering abortifacients, a court would likely have to overturn decades of precedent that have interpreted Georgia law to mean women cannot be criminalized for their own actions in securing abortions."

I mean, if people were saying "well, it's possible this could happen, have you accounted for that?" it would be one thing.  That's not what you and Slate and the other liars you are listening to are saying though.  You're saying the law provides that women will be prosecuted for seeking abortions.  Here is your quote:

That quote is a load of horse ****.  And now you know better.

1. It doesn't say true or false. They label it as unproven, which they state as them not having enough evidence to prove it as true or false. Due to they do not definitively back up your position either like you attempted to frame it.

2. They argue that fetal personhood has a slew of legal implications, which I mentioned earlier, but that there shouldn't be absolute certainty about prosecuting women because it would first have to defeat a challenge and overturn standing statutes, which it can.

3. Your argument has changed from, "Women won't be prosecuted under the law," to, "They could be prosecuted but don't worry about it because that would just be overzealous prosecutors." That isn't even remotely reassuring.

I expect better from you.

Optimus_Cr1m35 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

1. It doesn't say true or false. They label it as unproven, which they state as them not having enough evidence to prove it as true or false. Due to they do not definitively back up your position either like you attempted to frame it.

2. They argue that fetal personhood has a slew of legal implications, which I mentioned earlier, but that there shouldn't be absolute certainty about prosecuting women because it would first have to defeat a challenge and overturn standing statutes, which it can.

3. Your argument has changed from, "Women won't be prosecuted under the law," to, "They could be prosecuted but don't worry about it because that would just be overzealous prosecutors." That isn't even remotely reassuring.

I expect better from you.

And I from you.  Your starting point was that the law "expressly calls for the prosecution of women who obtain an abortion past the six weeks or goes out of state to get one."

That....is....horse....****.

WhenFalconsWin likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

Probably not for long.  But yeah......new thread, new leaf.

We need you, bro.  We need you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for what it's worth, they won't be prosecuted successfully under the new law, and I'd wager they won't be prosecuted at all but for the chance that some yahoo gung ho prosecutor in one of our eleventy billion counties might decide to try to make a name for himself the wrong way.

But if it makes you feel better, I personally know five people who voted for the law.  I'll ask each and every one of them to make the law more explicit in terms of prosecuting women who have an abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

"Conservatives expect their judges to rule by the Constitution!"

Here's an example of them making **** up to redefine the Constitution.

"Thank you for admitting I'm right."

Ruling by the law/Constitution always Trump's ruling with allegiances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JDaveG said:

And I from you.  Your starting point was "expressly calls for the prosecution of women who obtain an abortion past the six weeks or goes out of state to get one."

That....is....horse....****.

If you legally define any fetus that reaches 6 weeks as a human being, murder is defined as the premeditated killing of a human being, and you set up the framework for who to prosecute under these guidelines then, yes, you are absolutely calling for the prosecution of women who obtain abortions under murder charges.

I get that you're trying to defend your friend who is making this happen but c'mon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JDaveG said:

Jason Isbell's Twitter feed is gold.

Dude is genuinely hilarious.  I want to hang out with him and let the toddler play with his daughter, Mercy, who is also hilarious.

JDaveG likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

If you legally define any fetus that reaches 6 weeks as a human being, murder is defined as the premeditated killing of a human being, and you set up the framework for who to prosecute under these guidelines then, yes, you are absolutely calling for the prosecution of women who obtain abortions under murder charges.

I get that you're trying to defend your friend who is making this happen but c'mon.

No, they aren't.  And they said they weren't.  And the law is sufficiently clear on the abortion issue that it would take a lot of knot-untangling to allow what you propose is "express" in the law.

Nobody involved in passing this law is calling for the prosecution of women who have abortions.  The law's sponsors and the people who voted for it have said so publicly and to me privately.  Your argument appears to be that "well, that's what they said, but if you twist the law enough you can get to this conclusion, so their law EXPRESSLY does this dystopic thing I want to be true because it feeds the narrative."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Serge said:

 

I haven't gotten a conservative to admit it, either, but they're not supposed to admit that Trump has a mutually beneficial relationship with the liberal media. That's why wfw has to keep acting like Trump didn't want this, it just happened the way it did because the liberal media is out to get Trump.

Liberals ought to be able to admit it, but the liberal media calls him pure evil or pure stupid whenever they don't want to explain what he's up to, and it's harder to admit you've been bamboozled if you spent any amount of time laughing at his misspelled tweets.

And FTR, wfw, I'm criticizing both sides; you don't criticize conservatives even when you explicitly disagree with them.

I agreed with some of this and some of this was off the rails.

You always throw in WFW doesn't blah blah blah when I just disagreed with them ( when I said over my dead body) about these anti-abortion bills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now