All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[Scot Dutchy]

Well it is known that fascist always repeat themselves as it is a process of self convincing.

[Cunt]

Credit where it's due.

open borders vs closed borders is a black and white simplification that doesn't apply to reality. Except as a classification device.

Whenever an issue comes up, imagine blue person is for open borders, and red is for closed borders.

Then put a blue guy, and a red guy in where they would vote on that issue.

This will end up making the Dems look like they are 'for open borders', which is oversimplified, but it's been pretty consistent so far. Maybe you have a better sorting method.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Yes, that makes sense. In the same way it makes sense to say that opponents of the death penalty want murderers to go free. It's a lie, and lame casuistry cannot change that.

[Brian Peacock]

Yes, that makes sense. In the same way it makes sense to say that opponents of the death penalty want murderers to go free.

Or that pro-choice campaigners want to kill babies.

[Tero]

Portrait of Trump base.

[Scot Dutchy]

Yep. It really does.

[Cunt]

Yes, that makes sense. In the same way it makes sense to say that opponents of the death penalty want murderers to go free. It's a lie, and lame casuistry cannot change that.

Not quite, but opponents of the death penalty are CHOOSING to leave murderers alive. CHOOSING to imprison people (at least I don't see another choice)

As an opponent of the death penalty, I do realize that means I support feeding and caring humanely for a possible offender who kills in the worst way.

Why is this kind of thing contraversial?

Yes, that makes sense. In the same way it makes sense to say that opponents of the death penalty want murderers to go free.

Or that pro-choice campaigners want to kill babies.

Pretty much.

Isn't that your own position?

When you say 'want to kill babies', there is a lot of political bullshit in there, but if you accept their definition of 'babies' and of 'kill', isn't that exactly what you want?

Why not admit it? I always have.

The way I put it is pretty fucking bleak, but I also don't leave my position vulnerable to stupid, morality wanderings.

Anyone can evict anyone else from their body at any time, for any or no reason.

To me, that means personal autonomy, which sounds lovely (and IS) but it also means that a pregnant person can decide - at any time - to end their pregnancy and the choice is theirs to make.

In Canada, that means health care deals with it in a discreet way, same as having any tumor removed. The facts of the matter are pretty fucking ugly (in case anyone wants to discuss them) but no need - unless you think for some reason that evicting others from your body isn't a right you should have.

[Hermit]

When you say 'want to kill babies', there is a lot of political bullshit in there, but if you accept their definition of 'babies' and of 'kill', isn't that exactly what you want?

You seem to have difficulties with definitions all the time. A foetus is not a baby.

[Seabass]

Draining the swamp!

Esper confirmed as Defense secretary

Still, Esper faced resistance over his tenure at Raytheon, most notably from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), an Armed Services Committee member and presidential contender.

The two sparred over Esper's ethics agreement, with Warren arguing the nominee hadn't done enough to guard against potential conflicts of interest — similar to an exchange they had during his 2017 confirmation hearing to be Army secretary.

Warren slammed Esper for refusing to extend his recusal from issues involving Raytheon, which expires in November, to cover his entire Pentagon tenure. And she pressed him to commit to never seek a waiver from his recusal and to not seek employment in the defense industry for four years after leaving government, commitments he declined to make.

"Secretary Esper has real conflicts of interest with Raytheon that he is unwilling to remedy by taking simple, reasonable steps," Warren said in a statement. "Until he is willing to make these commitments, he should not be confirmed as the Secretary of Defense."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/ ... ry-1611413

All the best people!

Trump transition adviser convicted on foreign-agent charges

A federal jury on Tuesday convicted Bijan Rafiekian, a former business partner of Michael Flynn, on a pair of foreign-agent felony charges stemming from work the two men did for Turkish interests during the final months of the Trump presidential campaign in 2016.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/ ... ed-1428176

[Cunt]

When you say 'want to kill babies', there is a lot of political bullshit in there, but if you accept their definition of 'babies' and of 'kill', isn't that exactly what you want?

You seem to have difficulties with definitions all the time. A foetus is not a baby.

Are you actually so thick you think you are convincing me of something?

The folks who think of a zygote as a baby, will still think so.

I'm just saying that the fundamental right (personal body autonomy) is sufficient, without discussing (in a nuanced, careful way) when the line should be drawn as to where human life begins.

It begins millions of years ago. Been a bit of a brutal, horrific amount of death since, probably will be a bunch coming.

The reason I think my argument is stronger than claiming a zygote isn't a baby, is that there could be endless discussion about how many weeks along before 'the baby' gets rights. This leaves that discussion for others. The core idea is simply that people have a right to their own bodies.

Even women. Even pregnant people who think they aren't really women.

[Hermit]

Are you actually so thick you think you are convincing me of something?

I'm an optimist, not a deluded dreamer, so, no.

But I'll repeat anyhow: A foetus is not a baby.

The picture is for illustration purposes only. Look up "analogy" or "metaphor".

No. Wait. I just remembered. You're not into definitions.

[Tero]

https://twitter.com/P_Lepinkainen/statu ... 8815940611

[Cunt]

Are you actually so thick you think you are convincing me of something?

But I'll repeat anyhow: A foetus is not a baby.

Do you think you undestand my point enough to paraphrase it, to my satisfaction?

And if not, why should I bother with whatever you write?

[L'Emmerdeur]

Yes, that makes sense. In the same way it makes sense to say that opponents of the death penalty want murderers to go free. It's a lie, and lame casuistry cannot change that.

Not quite, but opponents of the death penalty are CHOOSING to leave murderers alive. CHOOSING to imprison people (at least I don't see another choice)

As an opponent of the death penalty, I do realize that means I support feeding and caring humanely for a possible offender who kills in the worst way.

Why is this kind of thing contraversial?

Imagine x is for letting murderers go free, and y is for putting them to death. Imagine where x and y would vote on the issue.

[Tero]

Keep America Kissing Kremlin's AsS
KAKKA