Roe v. Wade to be overturned?

[heyabbott]

Its so convenient, we are country that protects minority rights when the minority is white Christian. We are a democracy when the republicans have the Senate. We are a republic when they don't.

Pelosi is going down in the objective history books as one of the worst Speakers of the House, and that's some pretty shady company. Maybe Tip was effective when Reagan was President, but Pelosi hasn't made good use of her Speakership, ever. And Senate Democrats are just as bad. McConnell
Has played them for 25 years.

 

[The Big Ragu]

I'm not the one needing a secret decoder ring to extrapolate what he might have been saying to excuse what he did say.

It didn't take a secret decoder ring. And even if it did, there is no secret decoder ring that can make you understand what someone was trying to say, when you are are the guy who knew what they meant even before they said it.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

 

[doctorquant]

This is helpful.
From the moment I read the Cornyn tweet, I wondered. Among the platform's limitations is the difficulty in piecing together related messages. I can't figure out sometimes what is a response to what.

Hey, wait! Mine wasn't dispositive? What's a Clemson guy gotta do?

 

[garrow]

Nice

 

[Neutral Corner]

 

[tapintoamerica]

Hey, wait! Mine wasn't dispositive? What's a Clemson guy gotta do?

It was indeed helpful. I think what we really have here is a Twitter problem.
I wasn't sure Cornyn was really advocating the repeal of Brown. That's why I did the Jeopardy thing and asked what was going on. Your response led me to consider that the tweet looked absurd because it lacked clear, visible association to previous (and subsequent) tweets.

 

[Spartan Squad]

It didn't take a secret decoder ring. And even if it did, there is no secret decoder ring that can make you understand what someone was trying to say, when you are are the guy who knew what they meant even before they said it.

There's trying to say and actually saying.

From time to time, I try to say things as a complement or a joke. No malice behind it. But it doesn't come off that way. The person I say it to gets royally insulted. Should I then get mad at them because instead of looking at my intent, they chose instead to focus on my words?

An example. First week at my first job out of college, I'm chatting up a guy who has been there a couple of years and we're lamenting the low pay. In the course of the conversation, I said to him something like, you've gotten a raise since you started, right. He got defensive and told me I shouldn't ask a question it's not polite to discuss those things with coworkers, especially those I just met. Now what I meant was "you've been working here a while and from what I've seen, you've done some e really good work. Surely your time and effort has been rewarded." But that's not what he heard because that's not what I said. Should I get mad at him because he didn't understand the intent of what I said or should I admit I said something wrong?

Now the right honorable senator knows very well what Obama said andI it was nothing to do with just because we've had a precedent and a long time makes it good. Obama put out a short, but nuanced statement to say the ruling was bad and Cornyn's response was to say, "yeah well are you saying the desegregation ruling was also bad because that overturned a long standing precedent."

It was a shirtty comparison and he got called out on it. And I'm not going to sit here and excuse it by playing the "it wasn't actually racist because you need to look at the words he didn't say" game. This isn't jazz.

 

[DanielSimpsonDay]

what did she mean by classroom

 

[Spartan Squad]

what did she mean by classroom

Look what is important here is to see her intent. Her intent was, clearly, we need to arm more fetuses.

 

[wicked]

Does anyone remember when this putz slipped up on TV and said she supported abortion rights, then lost her job? Probably not.

 

[britwrit]

Partially, yes.

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I believe the abortion pill (which currently is for pregnancies 10 weeks or less, although now they're trying it on 11 weeks),'and online ordering are going to be major factors in defying these bans. The majority of these abortions are now done by pill.

90+ percent of abortions are done in the first trimester. I would think eventually, developers in Europe or blue states will improve the pills enough to cover that trimester.

Our government struggles to contain illegal drugs. Do you really think they're going to be able to check packages for abortion pills that are being sent from blue states or from other countries? Oh, they'll try, and eventually try to have someone arrested. But let's say they try to arrest a Jewish doctor from California who is shipping pills to women in Texas and the doctor says his religious belief and conscience say it's OK, and besides, California tells Texas to go fork themselves with extradition efforts.

This war is lonnngggg from being over. One side thinks it is because they finally won a big battle. But there's a lot more fighting to go.

There's also going to be a tendency on the anti-abortion side to ignore or minimize what's going on through the mails. Why take the luster off your great big victory by starting some unwinnable whack-a-mole war? Like a tree falling in the forest, if an abortion happens and nobody makes an official record of it, did it really happen?

Of course, this strategy will get thrown out the door by the crazier lunatics but this might happen. In the medium term - like ten to fifteen years - demographics are going to prevail. Religious attendance will keep falling, old white people will keep dying, and eventually, folks are just going to shrug their shoulders at this. Nobody will care anymore. We'll be back to somewhat where we are right now.

History is like that sometimes. Big things, like the fall of the Soviet Union, just occur out of seemingly nowhere.