tshile

10 hours ago, China said:

In a loss for the Biden administration, the Supreme Court ruled Friday that a Trump-era federal ban on bump stocks, gun accessories that allow semiautomatic rifles to fire more quickly, is unlawful.

 

Why is a Trump-era federal ban being overturned a loss for the Biden administration 

Could you imagine the ****storm if they went after him right now 😂 

This is why people attacking institutions in his first few years, which Trump started, were allowed to slide too easy. 
 

it’s the groundwork for rendering those institutions useless. 
 

if it’s your decision to make, there’s quite a few people (including you and your family) that’s lives change to include death threats and other forms of harassment. 
 

it’s a bad situation

3 hours ago, Fergasun said:

@tshile

Trump is the platform and the platform is Trump.  Why are you acting like anyone cares about the GOP platform?  I don't think they had one in 2020. 

 

Complete loyalty to emperor Donald is what they want.  It's very scary what the GOP is now. 

 

At the same time, they have no idea how dumb, wasteful, and counterproductive electing him will be.  We are gonna go 2 levels deeper into a worse Constitutional crises than when Nixon resigned. 

 

I don't think independent voters who will decide this are dumb enough to vote for a President with pending trials for alleged crimes he committed in the White House. I really hope not. 

I get this is what you and a bunch people think. 
 

but it’s not how it actually works, and it doesn’t really matter whether you recognize it or not - it’s the way *both* parties work. 

16 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

I just don't get where the evangelicals are coming from on most things.

 Neither do I. Being brainwashed is the only legitimate reason that makes sense to me. 
 

I brought this up at a dinner party last night during the discussion - if your true motive is to reduce the number of abortions, the answer is to beef up the support systems for children and families with children; fix the adoption system - I don’t know what fix means, but I know we have way more children that need adopting than we have people willing, and I know the adoption system is generally looked down on in terms of the quality of the system and surely no one (or most) views it as a great option; 

having a child is life altering. From the time it consumes to how expensive everything is. You want fewer abortions? Make it a less attractive option. Sure, it will still be a choice, but if it isn’t so penalizing to have and raise a kid (or if you have a high quality adoption system), surely that would change some decisions. 

1 hour ago, Larry said:

They didn't want to rule - the way they intend to rule - this close to an election

On the surface that makes sense but generally these cases have years of work and planning to get what they want in front of scotus. 
 

seems awfully weird these put the time and money and effort into this, to get it in front of their supposedly rigged court, just to have the court pass on it because they’d rather have sit until after the election …

if that was the plan then they’d have to have something in the pipeline already…

12 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

They punted on the merits so they can still subjugate women at a later date

Sure they did

they were guarding against the appeals process which might point out the standing issue 😂 

14 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

4 hours ago, tshile said:

 

 

I dunno either...but this just came out on the WP:

Again - right now is when all the advocacy groups throw everything at shaping the party platform. The convention is around the corner and they have a presumptive nominee. This is when everything throws everything they got to try to get their way. The convention will largely revolve around the platform for the campaign. 
 

I brought this up way back when Haley was still a candidate but it was really important she win 1 state - because if you win one state you are guaranteed 10 minutes of speaking time at the convention. This gives you leverage over the platform - no one wants you to go up there and trash the presumptive nominee, and she could have spent 10 minutes JUST trashing Trump and not have to repeat herself once during the 10 minutes. They know that. In order to get her to play along, they would have to make some concessions on the party platform. 
 

lobbyists, donors, PACs, all are going through the same thing. After the convention it’s shut up and get in line time, so they can concentrate on beating Biden. 
 

but right now is their best chance to throw their money or weight (political capital) around to try to officially get what they want in the party platform. 
 

you’re gonna see a bunch of groups come out with strong opinions and strong poll results between now and then. 
 

and regardless what happens 99% of them are gonna show up and vote for him in November. 

3 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

The Protestants just endorsed banning IVF, which is in opposition to Trump's position.

Ok yes, I am aware of that. I was thinking more about abortion.

but again - I stand by what I said earlier about what we’re seeing right now

and at the end of the day literally no one else outside their little group is even for considering banning IVF so they don’t have any ****ing options. They know that. They’ll go with the guy that’s close enough to them over the guy that’s the polar opposite. 

1 hour ago, Simmsy said:

Flipping on abortion might not tank him with the zealots, but he will lose SOME and them some is all the Dems need. Trump isn't picking up any new voters, so he at least has to keep the ones he's got.

Well hold on 

if Trump flips on abortion, then what I said goes out the window. I have no idea how those people would react and it probably depends on what “flipping” on the topic actually looks like. 
 

Trump has, from day 1, simply taken credit for building SCOTUS to kick it back to the states. Best I’ve seen he’s stuck to that - that it’s a state issue not a federal issue - although he contradicts himself all the time so I’m sure you can find random quips from him where he says something different. Overall - he’s been mostly consistent about kicking it back to the states. 
 

if he continues that he’s not flipping on anything. He’s staying the course, not putting a policy out there, sticking to his accomplishment, and generally punting on the issue. I, personally, don’t see that driving those people away from him at all. Especially given what’s on the ballot right now (states codifying abortion access rights)
 

if he starts advocating for specific policies then yeah, I could see it being a problem (though I’m willing to bet it will be really overstated and overblown by everyone compared to what it actually means on Election Day)

1 hour ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

I also think some of it (well, when it comes to politicians and religious leaders) are anti-LGBTQ and believe IVF allows gay couples to have children (via use of donors, of course) and take the same stance that they take on marriage:

I keep seeing people say this but I don’t see it. 
 

these people have been against this since before the modern lgbtq stuff

i remember under W. Bush they were up in arms and aggressively against embryonic research/therapy for the exact same reasons. 
 

once they decide something is “playing god” they go ape **** on the topic

but they have no problem giving their child antibiotics to fight something that used to kill people pre-modern medicine. They’re logically inconsistent. 
 

(I’m sure there’s plenty that are afraid of what you say, my point is this has been going on forever and it isn’t the main driver)

50 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

 

 

im shocked the court that’s here to subjugate women and roll back women’s rights ruled this way

🙄

6 minutes ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

But more to your point, the method of conception is so irrelevant that anyone thinking a pregnancy that results from anything other than the ol' "pickle tickle" is not of the parents' genes, I wouldn't want them deciding which pizza place to order from none the less determining what laws I now have to follow.

its the same anti-science nonsense we see from them all the time. 
 

we saw it with the Covid vaccine - not taking it cause god’s will will save them 

 They never consider that maybe god sent them scientists to help them get through the difficulties they face 

it reminds me of the parable of the guy floating in the ocean. A raft comes by and he refused as god will dave him. A ship comes by to rescue, he refused as god will save him. A helicopter comes overhead and he refuses again, as god will save him. He died. He meets god at the gates and, clearly upset, asks why he, god, allowed such a devout follower to die. God responds, I sent you a raft a ship and a helicopter, what do you want from me??

1 hour ago, Simmsy said:

 

That has not been working out for him at all so far. Eventually, he'll have to pick a side or the voters will pick one for him.

He won the primary in essentially an uncontested way. No one was close.  
 

You’re looking at groups trying to influence the platform - that’s what the lead up to the convention is.  I’m saying it doesn’t matter, if he handles it that way they will vote for him in November. 
 

they’re surely not going to vote for dems or sit out an election where codifying abortion rights into the constitution at the state or federal level is what the other party wants. Give me a break - he’s not going to lose their support because he doesn’t make banning abortion a part of the platform

other republicans have already openly said they can’t run on what they want to do or they won’t win. This isn’t exactly rocket science. 
 

if he loses it’s not going to be because he didn’t take a hard stance against abortion. 

3 hours ago, Califan007 The Constipated said:

 

 

IVF can involve donors, both for sperm and for eggs.

Sure, different fertility methods can involve donors. But to classify IVF as not being your genes is way off the mark - could be the case, but for many they are not using donors 

I’m not blaming them for the loss - Boston is the better team

but they missed some obvious stuff (some of it fouls against Boston…) and had some  calls the wrong way 

get out of here with that bull****. Did you even watch the game?

3 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Nope.

 

Problem is they believe the fetus is a human life. So saying that a state can decide if killing a "baby" is okay goes against what they believe. They NEED the national ban to protect "lives" everywhere. Leaving it to the states doesn't appease them, which Trump is already starting to see.

So they won’t vote for him?

not buying it. 

Yo these refs suck 

Well IVF is still your genes. It’s not donors. Just a scientific way of removing the random chance and forcing it along 

but it’s unnatural. And hardline Christians believe no sex for pleasure, and the result of sex is gods will. Birth control interferes with gods will. Confoms; IUD; it’s all unnatural. Masturbation is a serious sin. 
 

im know Catholics and Mormons are that way - I don’t know where in the portents/generic Christianity that line is drawn.  
 

the real thing is they’re just anti science. If you wanted to solve this you’d force every single one of them to give up modern medicine. 
 

your kid gets a serious cut and dies from infection? Gods will. 
 

we’d have a lot less of this bull**** real quick. 

I hope he flips over the scoring table 

Surely the basketball gods will still subscribe to the “Dallas has to win at least 1” theory right?

right?

That is not a ****ing blocking call

how bogus is that bull**** 

First that looks like a charge to me 

also what the **** 

The opening scene to newsroom (and generally the core theme of the show) was just spot on 

(so was veep)

41 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

Trump needs the antiabortion nuts to win their vote, but needs to drop it to get independent voters.

He can do both by sticking to the states’ right to decide option

its not supporting abortion but it’s not advocating for bans and punting on the issue entirely 

7 minutes ago, Destino said:

also watching Luka walk in, his legs are cooked.  No 25 year old walks like. 

He did clock 3rd highest average minutes per game this season

tatum #10 and Irving somewhere around #18 for what it’s worth (scanned list)

So never a routine “time for a blood test” thing

but definitely have had blood tests because it doesn’t take much for the doctor to want to see that. Kids (especially younger than 5ish) aren’t exactly reliable sources on what’s going on with them and when it started. 
 

we’re pretty happy with our doctor though and think she’s excellent. 🤷‍♂️ 

Darn. Thought we’d get through this without there being death threats 

On a different note - my son is finally of an age where he’s being introduced to guns. 
 

It’s a fun process. There’s few things, so far my early stages of fatherhood, where you see a child take things seriously, pay close attention, and make sure not to mess up. This is one of them (for him) which is good because otherwise we’d be hitting the pause button. 
 

it helps that he’s in a family where everyone takes it seriously. I had no problem letting him go off with his grandfather last week, and when he came home I chuckled when my wife asked if grandad went over gun safety. She asked me why I was laughing which I responded with - of course he did, and he will every time, for many more years, because that’s the only way you do it. 

another was a natural disaster we navigated together 

also getting some seriousness and maturity out of both children as we discuss getting chickens for the first time next year, and what it means when the chickens stop laying eggs. 

now if only I could get him to do that with his school work 🤦🏼‍♂️