Trump

[RedPhoenix]

When someone agrees with you that isn't a sign of weakness and it's not a cue to pick a fight.

I didn't say or imply anything about you other than that I agreed with you.

You can apologize for calling me backhanded now.

[TheGlyphstone]

You appeared to be attempting to twist my supporting statement into making me look like a hypocrite for my initial comment. That would be pretty backhanded, particularly considering how aggressive you've been about this whole thing to begin with. If that was not your intent, all you need to do is say so, and the whole thing can be laid to rest as misinterpretation.

[Suiko]

Guys try to take a step back. It's too easy to get personal when chatting about the political.

[Oniya]

Guys try to take a step back. It's too easy to get personal when chatting about the political.

Agreed.  Everyone should remember that text strips out a lot of the non-verbal cues that we rely on, and remember to choose their words carefully to avoid misinterpretation

[RedPhoenix]

You appeared to be attempting to twist my supporting statement into making me look like a hypocrite for my initial comment. That would be pretty backhanded, particularly considering how aggressive you've been about this whole thing to begin with. If that was not your intent, all you need to do is say so, and the whole thing can be laid to rest as misinterpretation.

Backhanded and aggressive now. Charming.

And no when I'm attacked like this and I will defend. Mis-characterizing someone's words and conjuring motives out of thin air in an effort to discredit them is the exact opposite of civil debate. You're quite literally ignoring the words I say in favor of imaginary implications and emotions.

Why would you do that?

[Suiko]

Agreed.  Everyone should remember that text strips out a lot of the non-verbal cues that we rely on, and remember to choose their words carefully to avoid misinterpretation

Quoted for truth. Agree to disagree on each other's opinions, aye?

[Suiko]

What do people think about the recent news of the White House possibly refusing an interview over the whole Russian business? I can't remember where I saw it earlier so someone smarter might be good enough to find the source, but yeah.

It's not a great idea since it makes it seem obvious that you're hiding something, but at the same time the interviewer has been saying how Trump is the most corrupt government official ever - so equally you can kind of see why they wouldn't want to talk to the guy.

[Suiko]

Sorry for the triple post. I found source - sorry again.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/09/white-house-close-to-refusing-interview-with-russia-investigation

[Oniya]

I think the Guardian may have gotten their lead from the New York Times.

Speaking to the prosecutor outside of court is generally considered a bad move for a defendant, and most defense lawyers will advise against it.

[Suiko]

I think the Guardian may have gotten their lead from the New York Times.

Speaking to the prosecutor outside of court is generally considered a bad move for a defendant, and most defense lawyers will advise against it.

Oof. Yeah that's rough... I can't see them agreeing to such a restricted interview to be honest. I wonder if it's more about who will drop it first - that way the other side can claim some trivial victory.

[Orval Wintermute]

Some of it feels like professional sportsmen who get their excuses in early. "The investigation is corrupt", "They only want to interview the President because they have nothing on him." etc.
I think Giuliani also knows the risk of sitting Trump down on the record with Mueller, the odds of Trump lying to a Federal prosecutor are not low. Feels like a precursor to Trump invoking Executive privilege, not because he's done anything wrong but because "Mueller can't be trusted to be honest".

[Orval Wintermute]

So Trump has announced his choice to join the Supremes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44775078

He wrote a Minnesota law review article in 2009 arguing that presidents should be shielded from criminal investigations and civil lawsuits while in office.

I wonder why Trump picked him.

[Oniya]

He also agreed with the dissent in Roe v. Wade.  Back in 2016, Trump was saying that 'If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that [overturning Roe v Wade] is really what will happen. That will happen automatically in my opinion. Because I am putting pro-life justices on the court. I will say this. It will go back to the states and the states will then make a determination.'

[ReijiTabibito]

Yes, but Roe v. Wade isn't really the basis by which we allow this right anymore.  Today, most things related to abortion derive from Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

[RedPhoenix]

It seems like he's pretty big on respecting precedent which is hopefully a good sign for gay marriage and abortion. He's said a lot that judges personal opinions shouldn't come into play and seems like he's very much not a fan of judges making law. Which honestly seems like about as good as we could have hoped for from a Trump nominee.

Honestly his views on government surveillance and net neutrality are the worst thing about him to me, if he does indeed respect the law that we have already. He said that he was totally okay with the NSA stealing cell phone data from Americans because he didn't think it was a search (?!!?) and shot down net neutrality too.

[ReijiTabibito]

John Roberts has also stated that Roe is settled law, and something he's not going to stand against. Frankly, the pro-life movement needs to embrace tactics other than legal ones.

[TheGlyphstone]

What other options do they have?

[Suiko]

What other options do they have?

The main arguments I hear for pro-life is that firstly the needs of the mother shouldn't outweigh the needs of the child (believing that the child is indeed a child from conception) and that abortion is being used far too frequently as a form of birth control - rather than something to be done as a last resort.

[TheGlyphstone]

The main arguments I hear for pro-life is that firstly the needs of the mother shouldn't outweigh the needs of the child (believing that the child is indeed a child from conception) and that abortion is being used far too frequently as a form of birth control - rather than something to be done as a last resort.

Swaying public opinion makes sense. It was just that out of context, Reiji's comment could have read that pro-lifers need to stop embracing legal tactics and start embracing illegal tactics, which didn't logically parse at all.

[Suiko]

Swaying public opinion makes sense. It was just that out of context, Reiji's comment could have read that pro-lifers need to stop embracing legal tactics and start embracing illegal tactics, which didn't logically parse at all.

Ah I get it ^^;

[TheGlyphstone]

For general clarity, that's parsing "tactics other than legal ones" as "tactics that aren't legal" as opposed to his intended meaning of "tactics other than changing its legality".

[ReijiTabibito]

Thank you for resolving that for me.  Yes, what I meant to say was that changing the legality of abortion really isn't going to do much.  It's like weed; lots of states are legalizing it now, but just because it is legal doesn't mean it is compulsory.

In short, pro-lifers (though I don't use the term myself, as it usually gets twisted) need to start doing two things.

One.  They need to advertise that if you are pregnant, and you don't want a child - which is one of the major reasons for getting an abortion - that there are other options that don't involve killing a living thing.  Education about adoption services, as example.

Two.  They need to start arguing in the culture war about personhood, which is what the debate is about now as opposed to 40 years ago.  The argument over abortion hasn't been about women's choice, from where I stand, for my entire adult life.  It is about where we draw the line that officially designates where personhood - and the rights that that entails - begins.

[Oniya]

One.  They need to advertise that if you are pregnant, and you don't want a child - which is one of the major reasons for getting an abortion - that there are other options that don't involve killing a living thing.  Education about adoption services, as example.

They already do.

[ReijiTabibito]

I was certain of that, but my argument is that education about alternatives needs to be the main focus, the thrust, of where all the pro-life energy is going, instead of hoping for a reversal of 45 years of legal precedent, culture change, and other such things.  If there is such a thing as the war on abortion, it's not won in the courts.

[gloriouslyabsurd]

Roe doesn't need to be officially overturned for it to be effectively overturned.  PP v Casey ruled that states can't put an undue burden on women that need an abortion.  That's a pretty vague term, and open to interpretation.  Twenty Five states have TRAP laws on the books, which essentially target abortion providers and try to shut them down by putting extra burdens on them.  That makes it harder and harder to get a safe, legal abortion, especially if you're poor and can't afford to travel.  A court that interprets "undue burden" extremely narrowly would allow some states to put extreme restrictions on the availability of medical clinics that can perform them.  It does you no good to be legally able to get an abortion if you have to travel hundreds of miles and take time off work you can't afford.