ChiGoose

This guy?

I must have missed his speech on the Ellipse.

He almost certainly suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. It’s not surprising he has the self control of a toddler.

Lots of straw man happening there. There was an attack on the Capitol after a Trump rally nearby. Many of the people just followed the crowd. We also know that several groups actually planned to break in and occupy the building. We know that one of those groups was in contact with people in Trump’s circle. We do not know if Trump himself was involved in the planning. We have a recording of Trump meeting all of the elements of violating Georgia election law. We have sworn testimonial evidence and documentary evidence of Trump likely meeting the elements of Conspiracy to Commit Fraud Against the United States. To your point, what will come of it? I am skeptical that the DoJ would charge a former president with a crime even if they had them dead to rights. In the meantime, it’s at least nice to have a historical record, and hopefully we will at least get prosecutions of some of the people higher up the food chain.

Agreed. I’m not overly optimistic about DoJ there.

Looking into one potential crime and finding various other crimes is not a “shift”

Yes the entire Jan 6 investigation was to cover up the sentencing of Maxwell. You figured it out! Good job! You get a gold star!

That’s a good question. I haven’t been able to follow today’s hearing closely but they have testimony that he wanted the metal detectors removed from the capital. The point I was trying to make is that saying people should do something peacefully doesn’t negate all other actions taken to increase the likelihood of violence. People keep posting that quote like it’s a magic spell that prevents any culpability. All of that being said, the attack on the Capitol is not the only crime that they are looking into. Even if they find no link between Trump and the attackers, they have already exposed that he committed other crimes in the lead up to Jan 6th. So far it’s just the people who will testify under oath.

I planned to rob the bank with my buddies. And we went to the bank, and I said “go into the bank, peacefully” and then they went in and robbed it. Therefore, I am not guilty of anything.

Hey, don’t kink shame.

What are you even talking about? Are you high? We don’t know if Trump or people around him coordinated with the Proud Boys or the other groups. That’s literally what we have an investigation for: to figure things out. I don’t know if there is a link between them. But I do know that we now have plenty of evidence of Trump himself committing actual crimes. So there’s always that.

Late term abortions are generally people who wanted the pregnancy but find out news about the life of the fetus or the mother is in danger. They likely already have a name picked out and a nursery set up. A lot of these talking points make it sound like there are masses of people out there who go through all of the difficulties of pregnancy for 8-9 months and then suddenly decide on a whim they don’t want the baby. It doesn’t make any sense and the number of instances of this likely vanishingly small. EDIT: This all comes down to how you define “late term.” Given the tone of the discussion about people aborting just before delivery, I was thinking it was ~30 weeks. Apparently, 21 weeks is considered “late term” despite being before fetal viability. Abortions at 21 weeks represent just 1.3% of abortions but do not fit the scenario I outlined above. Link: https://amp.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2019/mar/07/abortion-late-term-what-pregnancy-stage

I am a bit surprised it’s not someone higher up like Pat Cipollone given the urgency. But I’ve also seen reporting that she was facing credible threats so they wanted to lock her testimony in now.

The Texas stories are pretty recent and generally deal with their recent abortion law. What we are looking at is a debate about how competent state legislatures are at understanding the science and nuance around pregnancy. Given the examples and legislatures in general, it’s hard to feel optimistic about that.

Here are some examples based on current laws, laws pre-Roe, and laws in other countries to give an example of the potential dangers being faced here from lack of access to abortions or unclear / ambiguous abortion laws. Connecticut (pre-Roe): Woman dies from at-home abortion Washington (pre-Roe): Woman dies from botched abortion A different woman dies from a botched abortion At least 13 women died from botched abortions in the Seattle area between 1945 and 1969 Texas: Woman with ectopic pregnancy is turned down by doctors, drives 12 hours for treatment Patients who are miscarrying cannot get a pharmacy to fill their prescription Pharmacy will no longer provide methotrexate Woman has a miscarriage on wedding day but has to travel out of state for treatment Despite the fetus being incompatible with life, woman has to leave the state for treatment Malta: American Woman experiences partial miscarriage and has to be airlifted out of the country for treatment Poland: Woman dies in Poland after doctors refused to perform abortion when the fetus's heart stopped beating Another woman died in Poland after doctors were unsure if they could perform an abortion under the current law Ireland: Woman dies in Ireland during miscarriage after doctors refused to perform an abortion Nicaragua: Woman with ectopic pregnancy dies after treatment refused because of abortion ban Dominican Republic: Pregnant 16 year old with cancer dies after being denied treatment due to pregnancy Generally: Abortion laws complicate treatment for pregnant women with cancer Study finds states with more restrictive abortion laws had higher rates of maternal mortality Colorado study finds that banning abortion nationwide would lead to a 21% increase in pregnancy-related deaths Avoiding these kinds of negative externalities requires very well informed legislatures who write tight laws with little to no ambiguity. Without any kinds of guardrails now, I sincerely doubt that is the world that women will find themselves in.

Thankfully, I live in Chicago, where we have had little issue getting treatment for my wife’s five miscarriages. But the experience has made me really read up on miscarriages, the law, and abortion. Her first miscarriage was ectopic and while I was in the waiting room while she got a D&C for a different miscarriage, I read an article about a proposed law in Ohio that would have required doctors to re-implant an ectopic pregnancy, a procedure that does not exist.

Please go talk to an OB. Or any expert in the field. A miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion. That’s what it is, that’s what it’s called. The treatment for most miscarriages is an abortion to remove the tissue and prevent illness. Any law that governs abortions also governs miscarriages and they are no longer required to differentiate between the two. I have been living this nightmare for four years, believe me, I know what I am talking about. Seriously, just please either consult an OB or read any of the hundreds of examples that are easily available of women whose lives were endangered by a miscarriage because abortion laws interfered with their treatment.

Trump’s AG: The election was not rigged Trump’s Acting AG: The election was not rigged Trump’s Acting Deputy AG: The election was not rigged. Trump’s Office of Legal Counsel: The election was not rigged Trump’s Campaign Head: The election was not rigged Trump’s Campaign Lawyers: The election was not rigged Trump’s White House Lawyers: The election was not rigged Trump’s Daughter: The election was not rigged. @DRsGhost: They are all anti-Trump. I’ll believe legal geniuses like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell instead and anyone who disagrees with me is a moron.

Firstly, please point to me in the Constitution where it indicates that this should be a nation built on Judeo-Christian beliefs. Secondly, after repeatedly telling Kennedy to not pray publicly in while performing his duties as a state employee (while also trying to accommodate his religious need to pray), the District decided not to renew his contract after it expired because he would not adhere to school policy. Kennedy did not apply to be re-hired. Here is a scenario to consider: Biden hires a new White House Press Secretary who is a Muslim. Before the start of each press briefing, she rolls out a mat on the briefing room floor and prays to Mecca. While she does not explicitly say the journalists should join her, some do. Some because they are Muslim and they appreciate the opportunity to pray, others to fit in, and maybe some feel that they will have a better chance of getting their questions answered if they join in. Do you think this would be ok? I certainly don't.

If they feel pressured to do it because they believe it might affect their playing time or negatively impact their relationships with other kids.

Oh come on. I haven't even finished my notes on the last one and now they spring this on me?

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District was not about the right to pray publicly, it was about an endorsement of religion by someone acting in their capacity as an employee of the government. That is why the District was fine with him praying on the 50-yard line after people had left, and they tried to accommodate him to pray in private during school functions / hours. At least one parent complained that their kid felt coerced to join in even though they were not of the same faith as the coach. And if you can't see the difference between a kid not wanting to do an assignment and a kid not wanting to pray to a religion that they do not believe in, then I cannot help you. As to America being founded as a Judeo-Christian country, that would be quite the surprise to many of the founders. Especially the Washington and Adams administrations that negotiated and signed a treaty stating: "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;..." I guess maybe Washington and Adams weren't founders, so they wouldn't know...

If, after all of the evidence we have, the sworn testimony, the top of the DoJ and Trump's campaign all saying that the election was not rigged or stolen, you still believe in this crap, then you should throw your modem out the window and go touch some grass because you can't use the internet responsibly.

From noted hysterical leftist, Clarence Thomas, in his concurrence in Dobbs:

We knew that Roe was in serious jeopardy last summer when the Court granted cert to Dobbs. The question was whether they would continue Roberts' preferred method of death by a thousand cuts, or just go whole hog and overturn it entirely. Roberts has lost control of the court. The right to contraceptives, as well as the rights of not just gay marriage, but simply gay relationships, are squarely in the crosshairs right now. Keep on eye on what cases SCOTUS grants cert to and that'll give you a heads up on when we may see movement on this front. Thankfully, they denied cert on a case to overturn Times v. Sullivan which means they aren't gutting defamation law yet, but I'm not totally up to speed on the other cases they might be considering.