gowlerk

Like a dog whistle?

The combination of nationalism, isolationism, the taint of racism, misuse of religion, showmanship and above all populism all are factors that Trump has combined into his own unprecedented formula for just enough success to gain power through exploiting the flaws in the American federal system. It is hard to compare him to any of the 20th century figures being alluded to here. I feel that he is uniquely American and an entrepreneur and of course narcissist of the first order. Two things stand out to me marking him as very different. His age for one. He is far too old to ever become a dictator like those being spoken of. But more importantly, he does not really have an overarching agenda he wants to accomplish. Other than of course to accumulate money and power. The real danger is not Trump. It is the forces that he may unleash that will follow him into the future. Trump is not disciplined enough or smart enough to really lead. He merely reinforces the worst in his supporters that is already present.

Today three arrests were made. All three Indian citizens and all in Canada. https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/03/americas/canada-sikh-nijjar-assassination-suspects-intl-latam/index.html https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nijjar-killing-arrests-made-1.7192807 The speculation seems to be that elements of the Indian government used hired gangsters already in Canada to carry out the assassination.

Kristi probably grew up listening to Johnny Cash.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6UAbDqCo4Q

Is Noem too young to remember the Mitt Romney dog controversy? Voters love dogs. If you mess with a dog and get found out it will cost you. Rightly or wrongly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney_dog_incident

Even better, one of them is a woman.

Sort of the right thing. There is still the small matter of the 15 week ban.

Given the record and makeup of the current SCOTUS I would think that a change toward favouring more blatant governmental support for mainline religions is inevitable. It is already occurring on several fronts, especially support for parochial schools.

The USA is still largely controlled by those who are culturally "Christian". Meaning euro-centric and white. It has little to do with deities or theology. It is all about those who belong to the group with the most power clinging onto it as tightly as they can. It is a similar thing to how Hinduists have taken over in supposedly secular India. All US leaders must embrace the phrase "God bless America", it is a prerequisite even if only done performa.

I would kick in a couple greenbacks to John's GoFund Me.

Except that you would feel chastised and modify your behavior.

So that is the line, four weeks? That would basically be a ban. But I know, you would reluctantly accept giving relief to those women deemed to have an excuse. Because somehow even though the baby now has a heartbeat it would be justifiable homicide. It makes no sense at all. Either it is a human life worthy of all the protections of the law or it is not. It is an impossible thing to judge and that is why it needs to be left to the woman to decide. Because no one else can. You don't seem to be the slightest bit interested in saying who makes the call. And I understand that because there is no good answer so like all the hard questions here you just ignore it.

The world is full of people how think more of dogs than they do of people. On both ends of the political spectrum and not just in the US. Noem is an idiot.

Quit trying to have it both ways. Your basic posistion is that abortion is homicide but justifiable for certain women who meet a certain criteria. Mostly that they be good girls, preferably victims. It is both patronizing and completely impractical. One more time, and I am asking a serious question, not a rhetorical one. Who gets to decide which cases are justifiable homicide and which ones are murder?

Except for that word "imminent" and "psychological danger to the mother". Who decides that? Who gets to end up in front of a judge or losing their right to practice medicine if they get prosecuted? As always the devil is in the details. Is Keith willing to be the one sitting in judgement of which abortions are allowable and which are not? And if not Keith then whom?

Sure, and then you have to adjudicate who does and does not meet those requirements. In Canada that used to require a committee of 3 doctors for each case. It was difficult and unworkable in practice and resulted in long waits with the pregnancy progressing. If you make it a choice between her and her doctor then the doctor risks being judged as wrong and prosecuted. In the end it is best to acknowledge that women are not intrinsically evil and are capable of deciding for themselves.

There does seem to be a reluctance to come out and deal with the implications for women. I mean, if it is murder why not punish it as murder? When the hard realities come home to roost many anti-abortionists are unwilling to follow through because it never is as black and white as they would like it to be.

You can count on that. I don't keep track of stuff like that. My read then is that you do feel that a life starts at a much earlier time than abortions are generally done and are therefore immoral. But you are willing to allow them anyway even though you don't much like it. There are a lot of implications and contradictions there but we all have to draw a line and deal with it somehow.

Why can't you just come out and say that you regard a zygote as a person instead of beating around the bush? It is a valid posistion. But of course it requires you to state where your line is. If you feel that a human life is created at conception and should be afforded all the protections of a person just say so. If you want to be wishy washy and merely imply that without saying so, why not? Abortion kills a lifeform that is seperate from the woman who is carrying it. We know that much. We also know that it is parasitic upon that woman and potentially can kill her or change her life. Those are conflicting facts that affect rights and require that society deal with the tough questions that you won't answer here. Of course you can play coy and dance around, that is your right. But it is not a good look. Perhaps you are struggling and don't know what is right and what is wrong.

Posting a video and claiming it answers your question is such an obvious cop out as to be hard to respect. Canada essentially has had no abortion law for decades now. Society has not collapsed, but it seems to have led to low defense spending.

Some people sit in county jail waiting for their trials. Other people try to steal presidential elections and barely get punished. It mostly depends on what race and especially class you belong to.

Not only were there pizzas, but basements were also in existence. So Hitler's opponents could have been doing those nasty things after all.

Well then, I'm no longer concerned that you may have meant nibbling. Which would have puzzled me greatly.

I may be slightly offended unless it turns out that you meant to type "sibling".

Sexual immorality is what other people do that I not only would not do, but also find off putting. Or, it is what I say I would not do but have actually done or want to do and I feel guilty about desiring it.