Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Not as lazy as people making claims and not bothering to add a link.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Texas - Terrible abortion law doing what Republicans said it wouldn't do
- Thread starter Orbit
- Start date
Orbit
I'm a planet
Whatever, dude. You must be living under a rock to have not heard about this.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Naw. I just can recognize a joke when I hear it.
Look! I found a video!
Say your not proud of my efforts!
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Me either.
Dao Hao Now
Active Member
I never suggested so.
It doesn’t matter whether someone “100% agreed” with a candidate in order to recognize that, having weighed the available options and haven chosen one candidate over any others, that they have contributed to the outcomes that happen as result.
Would you not agree?
One might presume that any perceived downside of voting for the their chosen candidate is outweighed by any perceived upside of voting for their chosen candidate over any competitor.
I merely queried: whether you consider the fulfillment of Trump’s promise to appoint
anti-abortion Supreme Court justices, who managed to overturn Roe v Wade and thus enabling state laws such as that being discussed in this thread, an upside (good thing) or a downside (bad thing)?
When you say “neither”;
are you suggesting that you see it as inconsequential?
Orbit
I'm a planet
That wasn't a joke. Look at the details of the Republican blueprint for dictatorship here:
Project 2025 - Wikipedia
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
You're right. Trump said he'll be dictator but just on day one.That wasn't a joke. Look at the details of the Republican blueprint for dictatorship here:
Project 2025 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Oh , and that absolutely shocking wiki!
Our country is doomed!
Your missing the point. This guy thinks he has a choice about when to be a dictator and when not to. I hope it is not true, but depending on who he has around him and who is in control of Congress, he might be right.
So let's imagine he decides to be a dictator, only on day one. But then 100 days into his administration things are not going exactly the way he wants, so he decides to have another day where he is a dictator. And then the news media criticism him for being a dictator, do he decides to be a dictator again and several people in the media just disappear. Oh and then there are protests, but he knows how to deal with that, another dictator day. And on it goes.
And even if you really think he was telling a joke, you still have to understand that if he was telling a joke he was doing it to avoid answering a question.
Imagine you are running for President. And an interviewer asks "If you win election, do you have any plans of abusing your power?". That is not a hard question, that is a softball of all softball questions. You shouldn't even have to think about it. You say "No, I would never ever do that!".
Not what Trump said.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Change within government isn't unusual. Departments come and go. Some get set up and others dismantled.
It only becomes a threat when it supercedes the Constitution and the balance of power via checks and balances.
A number of Presidents attempted such changes including Obama.
So I'm not that worried about it nor should others.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You probably can still do so. Change your party affiliation to Republican and you can likely vote for him during the primaries. Though I doubt if he gets convicted in Georgia that he will get on the ballot. Oh the DC case would probably be even worse. The Florida case is likely not going to occur until after the elections. The judge that is leading that is a key Trump supporter and she has been doing everything within her power to delay the case as much as possible.
She could be in trouble once all of these trials are over.
Are you kidding me? Changes in the Government?!!! Being a dictator is not a "change in the government".
Once again, you obviously have no clue.
Orbit
I'm a planet
Newsflash: Dictatorship is not Constitutional.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
No, I thought you were asking if it was a good or bad thing that Trump was elected overall. In this instance Trump did what he said he would do and appoint conservative judges that would rule on a constitutional basis which is to overturn Roe. So I think it is a good outcome. Trump and myself are in agreement that any law on abortion is unconstitutional on the federal level. It should be left to the states as the constitution says. He never ran on banning abortions and he has said Florida's 6 week ban is a bad idea.
Dao Hao Now
Active Member
So might one correctly deduce that you feel the Texas law and response by members of the Texas government as are being discussed in this thread is an upside (good thing)?
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
No, it is not. The situation in the OP is the reason for the exceptions. Mrs. Cox should be able to have the abortion in this instance. I just read that she is leaving the state to get the abortion.
Texas Supreme Court rules against woman who sued for an emergency abortion
Kate Cox will be leaving Texas to get an abortion.
If Trump gets elected, and if a federal ban on abortion come to his desk, do you believe he will sign it?
And a follow up. If Trump does get elected, and if he does sign a federal ban on abortion, do you believe the Supreme Court would strike such a ban down for being unconstitutional? Do you believe they would strike it down, and do you believe they should strike it down?
Last edited:
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
No, he is not for a nationwide ban. He is for state by state policy per the constitution. He has said Florida's 6 week ban was a mistake.
I believe they would based on the past ruling, they basically have already struck it down if you read the roe ruling. The court ruled these laws belongs to the states which I agree with.
hmm, I do remember him being asked that question, As I recall his answer was strange and incoherent. He talked about "negotiating" as to whether it would be a 6 week ban, or a 15 week ban, or a 20 week ban. I thought is was strange the way the talked about negotiating like it was the price of a used car. But he certainly gave no indication he wouldn't sign any bill.
It seems you expect logical consistency on the part of this Supreme Court.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Yes he talked about negotiating. But isn't that good? He is just saying he will consider the other sides view and come up with a compromise.
Yes, they have shown logical consistency in their rulings.