GRcade

The ACLU is suing, I assume?

Photek wrote:

Preezy wrote:Hey, if Jesus says it's not ok, then it's not ok, ok?

Technically Jesus didn't actually say anything about Abortion.

Technically we don't know anything Jesus actually said, and only have a document written, compiled and constructed by others, none of which has been dated as being contemporary with Jesus's life, and yet what he "said" has formed the basis of some 21st Century laws.

Honestly, if someone walked up to you in the street and said they'd done something because (a) God has told them too, you'd first check you were still living in 2019 and then you'd slowly escort any children and sharp objects out of their vicinity.

Not saying you're religious here, Photek, but regardless of what Jesus "said", people just cherry pick religious quotes and passages to suit themselves. Obviously something that permits or forbids women to make choices about their own bodies, in no way infringes those middle aged white men and their own interests and agenda. So following God's Word is fine. They are hypocrites though as there'll be loads of other stuff they don't go along with.

What annoys me, isn't the argument that abortion is "good" or "bad". It is that if the biological roles were somehow reversed, you damn well know that men would never ever let the law tell them what they could or couldn't do with their bodies, or allow a law force them to carry a foetus to term, let alone allow women to almost unilaterally create it.

Preezy wrote:Hey, if Jesus says it's not ok, then it's not ok, ok?

I read this to the tune of Smooth Criminal.

Moggy wrote:I guarantee one thing, if men could get pregnant then abortion would never have been a controversial subject and it certainly wouldn’t have ever been illegal.

If men could get pregnant you could get the morning after pill in 'Ice Storm' flavour from the newsagent.

In a multipack.

Parksey wrote:

Photek wrote:

Preezy wrote:Hey, if Jesus says it's not ok, then it's not ok, ok?

Technically Jesus didn't actually say anything about Abortion.

Technically we don't know anything Jesus actually said, and only have a document written, compiled and constructed by others, none of which has been dated as being contemporary with Jesus's life, and yet what he "said" has formed the basis of some 21st Century laws.

Honestly, if someone walked up to you in the street and said they'd done something because (a) God has told them too, you'd first check you were still living in 2019 and then you'd slowly escort any children and sharp objects out of their vicinity.

Not saying you're religious here, Photek, but regardless of what Jesus "said", people just cherry pick religious quotes and passages to suit themselves. Obviously something that permits or forbids women to make choices about their own bodies, in no way infringes those middle aged white men and their own interests and agenda. So following God's Word is fine. They are hypocrites though as there'll be loads of other stuff they don't go along with.

What annoys me, isn't the argument that abortion is "good" or "bad". It is that if the biological roles were somehow reversed, you damn well know that men would never ever let the law tell them what they could or couldn't do with their bodies, or allow a law force them to carry a foetus to term, let alone allow women to almost unilaterally create it.

The problem is that the Bible clearly doesn't consider unborn babies as people (it actual appears to not consider people under a month old people). If a man causes a woman to miscarry they are just given a fine, priests can give abortions if infidelity is suspected. So these people are really on shaky ground.

Skarjo wrote:

Moggy wrote:I guarantee one thing, if men could get pregnant then abortion would never have been a controversial subject and it certainly wouldn’t have ever been illegal.

If men could get pregnant you could get the morning after pill in 'Ice Storm' flavour from the newsagent.

In a multipack.

I didn't realise Moggy had said the exact same thing that I did.

To be honest, I think if men were the ones getting pregnant, abortion would be the least of our worries. As a species, we'd have barely crawled out of the primordial goop if our reaction to the flu is anything to go by.

Parksey wrote:

Photek wrote:

Preezy wrote:Hey, if Jesus says it's not ok, then it's not ok, ok?

Technically Jesus didn't actually say anything about Abortion.

Technically we don't know anything Jesus actually said, and only have a document written, compiled and constructed by others, none of which has been dated as being contemporary with Jesus's life, and yet what he "said" has formed the basis of some 21st Century laws.

Honestly, if someone walked up to you in the street and said they'd done something because (a) God has told them too, you'd first check you were still living in 2019 and then you'd slowly escort any children and sharp objects out of their vicinity.

Not saying you're religious here, Photek, but regardless of what Jesus "said", people just cherry pick religious quotes and passages to suit themselves. Obviously something that permits or forbids women to make choices about their own bodies, in no way infringes those middle aged white men and their own interests and agenda. So following God's Word is fine. They are hypocrites though as there'll be loads of other stuff they don't go along with.

What annoys me, isn't the argument that abortion is "good" or "bad". It is that if the biological roles were somehow reversed, you damn well know that men would never ever let the law tell them what they could or couldn't do with their bodies, or allow a law force them to carry a foetus to term, let alone allow women to almost unilaterally create it.

I’m still waiting for (b)

twitter.com/mattwalshblog/status/1128735398157594626

What the strawberry float is wrong with these people?

It's been a while so...

But her emails

There goes Missouri too.

It's going to be decades for women's rights to recover in these areas.

Hexx wrote:There goes Missouri too.

It's going to be decades for women's rights to recover in these areas.

Surely a Democratic DoJ could just void these misogynistic laws?

So messed up it's unbelievable.

Alvin Flummux wrote:

Hexx wrote:There goes Missouri too.

It's going to be decades for women's rights to recover in these areas.

Surely a Democratic DoJ could just void these misogynistic laws?

They're state laws so it would take a chance of supreme court to do anything.

Lex-Man wrote:

Alvin Flummux wrote:

Hexx wrote:There goes Missouri too.

It's going to be decades for women's rights to recover in these areas.

Surely a Democratic DoJ could just void these misogynistic laws?

They're state laws so it would take a chance of supreme court to do anything.

Then we have to hope that Trump loses so RBG can retire knowing her replacement will not be a significant swing rightward.

This is how Republicans sell their policies and candidates so effectively to voters:

twitter.com/RogueShoeButler/status/1129551137538023424

twitter.com/RogueShoeButler/status/1129553999139659776

The solution seems simple to me: co-opt the strategy, and turn it to the Democrats' advantage.

Where Republicans show Biden as a creepy hair sniffer, depict him in front of the flag wielding a rifle and saluting.

Show military veteran candidates like Buttigieg posing on tanks, warplanes etc. Hell, show them leading a goddamn bayonet charge.

Depict the Trump family as anchor babies and the like, and the president as a lecherous caricature criminal, perving on upstanding citizens, or reaching into wombs and wallets. Depict him as the weak ass negotiator he is, folding before foreign adversaries, or standing on a crumpled American flag while the Russian flag flies behind him with a clearly Russian landmark as a "Made in Moscow" label is stamped on him.

Show Lindsey Graham the flip-flopping brown noser, DeVos the craven witch, or McConnell the corrupt evil mastermind fighting a Captain America-like hero character called, uh, Captain Healthcare?

Show piles of dead women and girls, killed by Republican healthcare and anti-abortionists policies. Introduce the term Christian Sharia Law and use caricatures of Trump hacking the Constitution to pieces.

Use simple, almost cartoon imagery and messages, of the kind Trump supporters respond to. Play on their prejudices. Get strawberry floating dirty.


They can still use messaging and whatnot that speaks to the Democratic base, but if they truly want to cut into Trump's base, if they ever want to retake the Senate, they need to change tack and advertise on the level that Republican voters respond to. Make them angry at and afraid of the Republicans, as they damn well should be.

Race to the bottom, then?

Tafdolphin wrote:Race to the bottom, then?

Because going high while they went low totally worked in 2016, or indeed the 2014 and 2010 midterms.

Alvin Flummux wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:Race to the bottom, then?

Because going high while they went low totally worked in 2016, or indeed the 2014 and 2010 midterms.

Yeah. But still. Race to the bottom.

Tafdolphin wrote:

Alvin Flummux wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:Race to the bottom, then?

Because going high while they went low totally worked in 2016, or indeed the 2014 and 2010 midterms.

Yeah. But still. Race to the bottom.

If there's a way to weaponize Trump's voters and deprive the GOP of its core constituency, it should be done, so long as it is not at the cost of the Democratic base.

Considering the effect extreme rhetoric has had on the Republican base, I'd rather it didn't happen to the Dems too. I don't view it as a viable strategy.

Look at AOC. She's become a sensation not because she hyperbolised and shamed the opposition but because she confronted them intelligently and effectively in public forums. Compare this to Pelosi and her insipid "Don't rock the boat" politics.

The Dems certainly need to be more aggressive, but taking the Republican's lead is the worst thing they could do.