I could not have said it better myself

brassplyer said:
Btw I thought it was old news that Dominion machines could readily be compromised - as I recall Texas rejected them because of security concerns.
Click to expand...
Yes . To my knowledge, it has been known since the 90s. Probably before that but in the 90s was the first I’d seen government hearings going over how easily the machines could be hacked.
 
Last edited:
But in the video it covers how Georgia had known but ignored the report and won’t be doing anything about the vulnerabilities till after 2024. If you haven’t, you should watch it.
Our county rejected them a year ago.
 
Last edited:
brassplyer said:
I add the caveat that the law needs to be constitutionally sound. Consensus seems to be that Roe wasn't.
Click to expand...
Precisely! The R v W decision was perhaps flawed, and perhaps wrong, but nonetheless, all these years later, everyone continues arguing with each other as to the constitutionality of the R v W decision.
 
A
60's guy said:
Precisely! The R v W decision was perhaps flawed, and perhaps wrong, but nonetheless, all these years later, everyone continues arguing with each other as to the constitutionality of the R v W decision.
Click to expand...
When the Construction was written, I can only assume it that authors assumed it that long after they were dead and gone, the words written would resonate.
It didn't happen, not then, nor now.
 
brassplyer said:
As an atheist who supports abortion rights to a point and a Trump voter it confuses a lot of people. I add the caveat that the law needs to be constitutionally sound. Consensus seems to be that Roe wasn't.
Click to expand...
ez_willis said:
The consensus of THIS SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
I don't hold myself up as a constitutional scholar - can you point to credible constitutional/legal scholars who say Roe is in line with the Constitution?
 
brassplyer said:
I don't hold myself up as a constitutional scholar - can you point to credible constitutional/legal scholars who say Roe is in line with the Constitution?
Click to expand...
You don't need to be a scholar to understand the Constitution. In fact, it was written in quite simple English (for the time, and definitely according to any standard of legal jargon). If you ever read it, you will see that the Constitution conspicuously does not make any provision for the legality of abortion at any time - making the reversal of laws against abortion (e.g., Roe v Wade) unconstitutional.
 
Serendipity Records said:
What happens at the start of the second trimester that would make abortion less flawed?
Click to expand...
I'm not for full-term or near full-term abortions unless there's some compelling catastrophic medical reason which I understand to be rare - so first trimester seems like a good compromise. First trimester and 2 weeks could be okay too. At some point a woman needs to decide.

No religious argument would be compelling to me - I view pregnancy and procreation in of themselves to be about as inherently special as sand.
 
60's guy said:
Nor was it written within the Constitution that White men can legally own Black men.

Unfortunately, the Constitution has been distorted and abused.
Click to expand...

I blame lawyers. The unscrupulous ones who are experts in wordsmithing and under the cover of their elevated status as legal scholars, who twist the truth.
 
Last edited:
brassplyer said:
I don't hold myself up as a constitutional scholar - can you point to credible constitutional/legal scholars who say Roe is in line with the Constitution?
Click to expand...
If I cared enough to and thought you'd read it, consider what was written and either confirm your current position or change it based on new evidence, yes. Absolutely. But no.
 
I don't feel like fighting with you guys today. I was up with the baby and didn't sleep well. Sorry guys. I'll get some sleep tonight and come back tomorrow fresh, I promise. Then I'll be able to argue about shit none of us have any control over more vigorously. And I know that's why you all love me so much.
 
brassplyer said:
I don't hold myself up as a constitutional scholar - can you point to credible constitutional/legal scholars who say Roe is in line with the Constitution?
Click to expand...
ez_willis said:
If I cared enough to and thought you'd read it, consider what was written and either confirm your current position or change it based on new evidence, yes. Absolutely. But no.
Click to expand...
You're batting 1000 - you face-planted on "knowing" I'm against abortion, you're aware I'm not a Bible-thumping member of the Religious Right, yet again you "know" I'm being insincere when I ask if you know of credible legal experts who say Roe was a good decision. Does it make sense to you that I would be pleased that abortion was made less readily available if such a measure runs against the Constitution? I've looked albeit not exhaustively, so far haven't found someone who fits the description I outlined - I wondered if you were aware of someone.

I not only support rights for first trimester abortion there are a lot of women who I would *encourage* to get one so that they're not growing the ranks of kids growing up in crap circumstances including if they would be a shitty mother and know it even if they have means.

We don't need more of this.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top