POLITICS Random Political/Legal

Discussion in 'Politicants' started by fl0at_, Jun 7, 2021.

  1. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    I never expect a hypocrite to do anything other than express hypocrisy. I can't imagine you thinking I thought you would suddenly be intelligent. I don't. Sorry.

    If someone can make a choice on A, that would affect B, but don't, then they are hypocrites.

    Do them all, or do none of them. If one checks you up, they all should. Otherwise, it's hypocrisy.

    Nobody thinks interracial marriage will be. But it can be.

    The will argument is over. Never needs to be brought up.

    The entirety of it is whether "can" should be allowed.
     
  2. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    The genetics of our country is changing. At some point, assuming no major changes, the "white European" ancestry will blend with the dominate Asian and Hispanic populations.

    You can sure as shit bet that as that becomes more obvious, "white European" culture protections will become more popular.

    Let's play a simple game:

    1. Who thinks white people will let themselves become a minority in America?

    What ya think @Indy?
     
  3. VolDad

    VolDad Super Moderator

    "number of people". You specifically referenced the number of people as being important in your post. I pointed out that the number of people with a like opinion do not matter.
     
  4. Indy

    Indy Future Podcast Co-Host

    Unless I misunderstand how this stuff works, they can't "do them all" until they receive cases pushing back against the rest of them.

    IP and gcb literally just said a page ago that they think it will be.

    And, again, there are other ways to prevent "can" from happening.
     
  5. Indy

    Indy Future Podcast Co-Host

    Number of people absolutely matters. If 99% of a population wants something to be legal, then the chance of that thing being made illegal or slim to none. Because any elected person who makes the thing illegal would then be promptly voted out of office by the 99% of people who think it should be legal.

    Why do you think that "number of people" does not matter?
     
  6. VolDad

    VolDad Super Moderator

    The White population has been declining; with more deaths than births. Some view this decision as changing that....

     
    The Dooz likes this.
  7. VolDad

    VolDad Super Moderator

    Why didn't the numbers matter in this case with 60% of American favoring a Woman's right to choose.

    Also numbers do not matter because we are a Republic and not a Democracy.
     
    NorrisAlan likes this.
  8. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Founder of the Mike Honcho Fan Club

    I will say, they said this was a Freudian slip, and she meant to say "right to life". But let's be honest, Freudian slips are usually because you have something on your mind.

    But I will give her the benefit of the doubt here.
     
    VolDad likes this.
  9. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    They absolutely can strike down whatever they want--judicial rights!

    They've convinced you they can't, because you're gullible. You've stated it here, because you erroneously think you aren't an idiot.

    IP/gcb posts have nothing to do with anything between you and I.

    There are other ways. The issue at hand is why not just pick the way that is all ways?

    That continues to be the argument you keep missing: do them all. Or do none of them.

    In word and in deed.
     
  10. Volst53

    Volst53 Super Moderator


    Because it’s a mixed bag I think. I don’t think a huge percentage want them totally banned but I think a huge percentage want more of what European countries allow with way more requirements after the first trimester.
     
    Indy likes this.
  11. Indy

    Indy Future Podcast Co-Host

    The abortion argument really isn't as straight forward as "are you Pro-Life or are you Pro-Choice." The "numbers" get a lot more murky once you start asking people more questions about when they think an abortion should or shouldn't be legal.

    Numbers absolutely matter. 60% isn't typically enough to get stuff like this done whenever the other 40% are in pretty direct opposition, rather than just indifferent.
     
  12. The Dooz

    The Dooz Super Moderator

    Yes I understand that it’s more nuanced than that in general, but I was speaking about the the issues already mentioned here primarily:

    Gay marriage, abortion, interracial marriage all popular among everyone but white Evangelicals.

    We can probably assume they’re going to get Medicare, SSI and not forget they’re going to gut the ACA if they ever get the right chance again. All those are popular.
     
  13. Indy

    Indy Future Podcast Co-Host

    You're awfully early and frequent with the personal attacks today.

    Feel free to explain the process through which the Supreme Court could strike down interracial marriage or same sex marriage right now without something being brought to them that directly challenges one or both.

    You literally just said "Nobody thinks interracial marriage will be." If IP and gcb's posts are in direct conflict with that statement, then, yeah, they do.

    I haven't missed anything.
     
  14. VolDad

    VolDad Super Moderator

    So if 60% is not enough to get stuff done; what percentage is enough?
     
  15. Indy

    Indy Future Podcast Co-Host

    Abortion, in the absolute sense, is not "popular among everyone but white Evangelicals." Support for abortion drops substantially after the first trimester.
     
  16. Indy

    Indy Future Podcast Co-Host

    Whatever percentage is needed in order to get 2/3 of the House and Senate to propose an Amendment to the Constitution and 38/50 States to approve it.

    Interracial marriage can get that with relative ease, imo. Abortion wouldn't even get close. Because the numbers matter.
     
  17. VolDad

    VolDad Super Moderator

  18. gcbvol

    gcbvol Fabulous Moderator

    Any rights or privileges which were historically challenged biblically are up for grabs. Some will be challenged by states in the next few months. Only a matter of time for others.
     
    ptclaus98 likes this.
  19. gcbvol

    gcbvol Fabulous Moderator

    Ooof.
     
    NorrisAlan likes this.
  20. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Yes.

    You have it backwards, feel free to explain the way in which they can't, citing, only, the Constitution, since that is the one that matters.

    Oops. Nothing in there prevents them. I guess I accidentally explained it.

    I did, yes. And you have taken giving a possibility of occurrence as belief in the occurrence. These aren't the same.

    If you haven't missed anything, then you are purposely not addressing the argument.
     
    IP likes this.

Share This Page