Home
Awful. I'm devastated.
4 posters
RBG has passed away
blondy28- Bova!
- Posts : 1804
Join date : 2017-05-06
sharpy- Fanboy
- Posts : 915
Join date : 2017-05-10
You should be devastated .. as should the country. It no longer matter who wins the November election. The supreme court is now going to be 6-3 conservatives .. and NOTHING that any democratic president puts up will pass and all will be declared unconstitutional. I feel sorry for John Roberts. His court will now go down with the same reputation as the Nazi courts did in Germany from '33-'45. The death of RBG has just given trump the election - he will contest the results and guess who will determine the winner ?? 2000 ring any bells.
The one good thing - abortion will be deemed illegal .. so we can now go back to when America was great = backroom abortions and maimed females .. not to mention, all the unwanted and abused children that will now be born.. LUCKY THEM.
The one good thing - abortion will be deemed illegal .. so we can now go back to when America was great = backroom abortions and maimed females .. not to mention, all the unwanted and abused children that will now be born.. LUCKY THEM.
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
sharpy wrote:You should be devastated .. as should the country. It no longer matter who wins the November election. The supreme court is now going to be 6-3 conservatives .. and NOTHING that any democratic president puts up will pass and all will be declared unconstitutional. I feel sorry for John Roberts. His court will now go down with the same reputation as the Nazi courts did in Germany from '33-'45. The death of RBG has just given trump the election - he will contest the results and guess who will determine the winner ?? 2000 ring any bells.
The one good thing - abortion will be deemed illegal .. so we can now go back to when America was great = backroom abortions and maimed females .. not to mention, all the unwanted and abused children that will now be born.. LUCKY THEM.
It'll be 5-3 at the time of the election, although they may get someone sworn in and make it 6-3 before there's any case decided about the election.
I don't think abortion is about to be deemed illegal. I've read some insider stuff about the Court and it was asserting that Thomas is the only one that appears ready to just overturn R v W. Supposedly, the others believe that the basic arguments in R v W are sound. I mean, it's a guarantee of privacy. It's not a legalization of abortion. I do think there'll be a continual chipping away at the privacy rights in ways that make it harder to get abortion the same way the GOP keeps making it harder to vote. But I don't see it going away, especially in blue or bluish states.
blondy28- Bova!
- Posts : 1804
Join date : 2017-05-06
SoxIlliniRob wrote:sharpy wrote:You should be devastated .. as should the country. It no longer matter who wins the November election. The supreme court is now going to be 6-3 conservatives .. and NOTHING that any democratic president puts up will pass and all will be declared unconstitutional. I feel sorry for John Roberts. His court will now go down with the same reputation as the Nazi courts did in Germany from '33-'45. The death of RBG has just given trump the election - he will contest the results and guess who will determine the winner ?? 2000 ring any bells.
The one good thing - abortion will be deemed illegal .. so we can now go back to when America was great = backroom abortions and maimed females .. not to mention, all the unwanted and abused children that will now be born.. LUCKY THEM.
It'll be 5-3 at the time of the election, although they may get someone sworn in and make it 6-3 before there's any case decided about the election.
I don't think abortion is about to be deemed illegal. I've read some insider stuff about the Court and it was asserting that Thomas is the only one that appears ready to just overturn R v W. Supposedly, the others believe that the basic arguments in R v W are sound. I mean, it's a guarantee of privacy. It's not a legalization of abortion. I do think there'll be a continual chipping away at the privacy rights in ways that make it harder to get abortion the same way the GOP keeps making it harder to vote. But I don't see it going away, especially in blue or bluish states.
It's so much more than abortion.
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
blondy28 wrote:SoxIlliniRob wrote:sharpy wrote:You should be devastated .. as should the country. It no longer matter who wins the November election. The supreme court is now going to be 6-3 conservatives .. and NOTHING that any democratic president puts up will pass and all will be declared unconstitutional. I feel sorry for John Roberts. His court will now go down with the same reputation as the Nazi courts did in Germany from '33-'45. The death of RBG has just given trump the election - he will contest the results and guess who will determine the winner ?? 2000 ring any bells.
The one good thing - abortion will be deemed illegal .. so we can now go back to when America was great = backroom abortions and maimed females .. not to mention, all the unwanted and abused children that will now be born.. LUCKY THEM.
It'll be 5-3 at the time of the election, although they may get someone sworn in and make it 6-3 before there's any case decided about the election.
I don't think abortion is about to be deemed illegal. I've read some insider stuff about the Court and it was asserting that Thomas is the only one that appears ready to just overturn R v W. Supposedly, the others believe that the basic arguments in R v W are sound. I mean, it's a guarantee of privacy. It's not a legalization of abortion. I do think there'll be a continual chipping away at the privacy rights in ways that make it harder to get abortion the same way the GOP keeps making it harder to vote. But I don't see it going away, especially in blue or bluish states.
It's so much more than abortion.
Oh, definitely. I was only responding to Tim's points about abortion.
I don't worry much about abortion, as I think one of two things will eventually happen:
1. Abortion stops being necessary because we get better at managing unwanted pregnancies (maybe birth control becomes easier or better), or
2. We eventually move past this fight and realize it's a right (privacy) and the make up of the court eventually just acknowledges this.
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
We'll see if they hold to it, but there's talk that several senators are pledging not to vote for a nominee until after the inauguration unless Trump wins, in which case they'd proceed. I believe I saw where Murkowski already pledged not to vote for any nominee until after Jan 20. I believe Romney is saying the same. Sounds like there may be more.
I'm not as much of a cynic as Tim is here, but I'm still a bit of a skeptic on this. Ultimately, they are going to measure the political calculus of all of the different options and they're going to choose the path that affords them the most political power. If they deem that waiting it out will help them in the Nov election, then they'll wait and vote after the election or even after the inauguration. Seems to me like this is a bit more up in the air than perhaps we might have believed, but deep down I expect them to completely forget what they did in 2016 and just proceed now as if that never happened.
One thing I can foresee is that if they do this and actually push someone through prior to a potential Biden inauguration, and if the Dems were to gain a Dem senate majority (looks like about a 50/50 chance), then I can see the Dems just saying "fuck it" and figuring it's time to assert themselves and doing some drastic things. Removing the filibuster and passing some dramatic things, like lowering the Medicare age to 55 or 50? Trying to add move people to SCOTUS to raise it from 9 to 11? Maybe. Not making a prediction about what they'd do so much as saying I can imagine them burning some shit down and figuring that if burning shit down during the Trump years worked, then maybe it works for them, too. Of course, if Dems only have a 50/50 or 51/49 edge in the senate, they're going to need pretty much 100% buy-in to any such plan, and that could be hard to get.
I'm not as much of a cynic as Tim is here, but I'm still a bit of a skeptic on this. Ultimately, they are going to measure the political calculus of all of the different options and they're going to choose the path that affords them the most political power. If they deem that waiting it out will help them in the Nov election, then they'll wait and vote after the election or even after the inauguration. Seems to me like this is a bit more up in the air than perhaps we might have believed, but deep down I expect them to completely forget what they did in 2016 and just proceed now as if that never happened.
One thing I can foresee is that if they do this and actually push someone through prior to a potential Biden inauguration, and if the Dems were to gain a Dem senate majority (looks like about a 50/50 chance), then I can see the Dems just saying "fuck it" and figuring it's time to assert themselves and doing some drastic things. Removing the filibuster and passing some dramatic things, like lowering the Medicare age to 55 or 50? Trying to add move people to SCOTUS to raise it from 9 to 11? Maybe. Not making a prediction about what they'd do so much as saying I can imagine them burning some shit down and figuring that if burning shit down during the Trump years worked, then maybe it works for them, too. Of course, if Dems only have a 50/50 or 51/49 edge in the senate, they're going to need pretty much 100% buy-in to any such plan, and that could be hard to get.
blondy28- Bova!
- Posts : 1804
Join date : 2017-05-06
SoxIlliniRob wrote:We'll see if they hold to it, but there's talk that several senators are pledging not to vote for a nominee until after the inauguration unless Trump wins, in which case they'd proceed. I believe I saw where Murkowski already pledged not to vote for any nominee until after Jan 20. I believe Romney is saying the same. Sounds like there may be more.
I'm not as much of a cynic as Tim is here, but I'm still a bit of a skeptic on this. Ultimately, they are going to measure the political calculus of all of the different options and they're going to choose the path that affords them the most political power. If they deem that waiting it out will help them in the Nov election, then they'll wait and vote after the election or even after the inauguration. Seems to me like this is a bit more up in the air than perhaps we might have believed, but deep down I expect them to completely forget what they did in 2016 and just proceed now as if that never happened.
One thing I can foresee is that if they do this and actually push someone through prior to a potential Biden inauguration, and if the Dems were to gain a Dem senate majority (looks like about a 50/50 chance), then I can see the Dems just saying "fuck it" and figuring it's time to assert themselves and doing some drastic things. Removing the filibuster and passing some dramatic things, like lowering the Medicare age to 55 or 50? Trying to add move people to SCOTUS to raise it from 9 to 11? Maybe. Not making a prediction about what they'd do so much as saying I can imagine them burning some shit down and figuring that if burning shit down during the Trump years worked, then maybe it works for them, too. Of course, if Dems only have a 50/50 or 51/49 edge in the senate, they're going to need pretty much 100% buy-in to any such plan, and that could be hard to get.
We're not going to win the senate. Or the presidency. All the GOP has to do is challenge these races, then run out the clock. They don't have to win the challenges...just clog up the system long enough to hit each state's certification deadline, then they can only certify the count as of that day. And that's what they'll do.
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
blondy28 wrote:SoxIlliniRob wrote:We'll see if they hold to it, but there's talk that several senators are pledging not to vote for a nominee until after the inauguration unless Trump wins, in which case they'd proceed. I believe I saw where Murkowski already pledged not to vote for any nominee until after Jan 20. I believe Romney is saying the same. Sounds like there may be more.
I'm not as much of a cynic as Tim is here, but I'm still a bit of a skeptic on this. Ultimately, they are going to measure the political calculus of all of the different options and they're going to choose the path that affords them the most political power. If they deem that waiting it out will help them in the Nov election, then they'll wait and vote after the election or even after the inauguration. Seems to me like this is a bit more up in the air than perhaps we might have believed, but deep down I expect them to completely forget what they did in 2016 and just proceed now as if that never happened.
One thing I can foresee is that if they do this and actually push someone through prior to a potential Biden inauguration, and if the Dems were to gain a Dem senate majority (looks like about a 50/50 chance), then I can see the Dems just saying "fuck it" and figuring it's time to assert themselves and doing some drastic things. Removing the filibuster and passing some dramatic things, like lowering the Medicare age to 55 or 50? Trying to add move people to SCOTUS to raise it from 9 to 11? Maybe. Not making a prediction about what they'd do so much as saying I can imagine them burning some shit down and figuring that if burning shit down during the Trump years worked, then maybe it works for them, too. Of course, if Dems only have a 50/50 or 51/49 edge in the senate, they're going to need pretty much 100% buy-in to any such plan, and that could be hard to get.
We're not going to win the senate. Or the presidency. All the GOP has to do is challenge these races, then run out the clock. They don't have to win the challenges...just clog up the system long enough to hit each state's certification deadline, then they can only certify the count as of that day. And that's what they'll do.
I don't really buy the notion that they would be able to pull of this kind of shenanigans. I don't think it's as simple as challenging races and running out the clock. Votes are votes, and while I expect them to try some shit and challenge some shit, I still think the Court has enough sense to not just go along with some obvious bullshit. If they do, there'll be mass violence, fires, looting, etc, and they'd know that, and they'd have that coming if they went along with a bunch of shit like that. I pretty strongly believe that courts would extend deadlines to certify if there was a deliberate attempt to slow counting. Despite it being a right leaning court, they've still made several decisions that went against conventional expectations and they are very aware of their legacies.
Put it this way....worst case, I figure Biden wins the popular vote by at least 3%, if not 5 or 6%. If Biden wins by 5-6%, or maybe 7%, and then there's a clear and obvious attempt to delay counting and run out the clock, then we'll not need to worry about who wins the election because it'll be a full fledged civil war and for damn good reason. And our concerns will be dealing with remaining alive and employed during this strife, rather than who is president. I actually think that the general public won't stand for Trump winning if he loses the popular vote by more than 4-5%. I think they'd sense that there was some kind of vote altering in a situation like that. According to Nate Silver, it's nearly implausible to win the popular vote by more than 4-5% and not win the Electoral College. People understand this, and I don't think they'll stand for it.
sharpy- Fanboy
- Posts : 915
Join date : 2017-05-10
I don't worry much about abortion, as I think one of two things will eventually happen:
1. Abortion stops being necessary because we get better at managing unwanted pregnancies (maybe birth control becomes easier or better), or
2. We eventually move past this fight and realize it's a right (privacy) and the make up of the court eventually just acknowledges this.
1. Abortion rates dropped like a rock when Obama had schools handing out condoms - guess who objected to that idea? the same people who ...
2. Will never move past this fight - i.e the religious right and the catholics I'm not sure what indications you might have that in any of our lifetimes, the anti-abortion crowd is going to "move past this"??
1. Abortion stops being necessary because we get better at managing unwanted pregnancies (maybe birth control becomes easier or better), or
2. We eventually move past this fight and realize it's a right (privacy) and the make up of the court eventually just acknowledges this.
1. Abortion rates dropped like a rock when Obama had schools handing out condoms - guess who objected to that idea? the same people who ...
2. Will never move past this fight - i.e the religious right and the catholics I'm not sure what indications you might have that in any of our lifetimes, the anti-abortion crowd is going to "move past this"??
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
sharpy wrote:I don't worry much about abortion, as I think one of two things will eventually happen:
1. Abortion stops being necessary because we get better at managing unwanted pregnancies (maybe birth control becomes easier or better), or
2. We eventually move past this fight and realize it's a right (privacy) and the make up of the court eventually just acknowledges this.
1. Abortion rates dropped like a rock when Obama had schools handing out condoms - guess who objected to that idea? the same people who ...
2. Will never move past this fight - i.e the religious right and the catholics I'm not sure what indications you might have that in any of our lifetimes, the anti-abortion crowd is going to "move past this"??
My reasoning on #2, Tim, is that I view the anti-abortion crowd as a primary religious faction of our population. A few are opposed on some kind of strictly moral grounds, irrespective of religion, but the vast majority are religious folks. Those affiliating with religion and religious groups are in steady decline in the US. I just view this as eventually becoming a tiny minority of folks. It's already a regular minority, and that minority is shrinking. Not sure if reaching that tiny minority will take another decade or another century, but it's where I believe we're heading.
sharpy- Fanboy
- Posts : 915
Join date : 2017-05-10
My reasoning on #2, Tim, is that I view the anti-abortion crowd as a primary religious faction of our population. A few are opposed on some kind of strictly moral grounds, irrespective of religion, but the vast majority are religious folks. Those affiliating with religion and religious groups are in steady decline in the US. I just view this as eventually becoming a tiny minority of folks. It's already a regular minority, and that minority is shrinking. Not sure if reaching that tiny minority will take another decade or another century, but it's where I believe we're headi
ok - hope it takes weeks ..... not decades or centuries .. (ha)
ok - hope it takes weeks ..... not decades or centuries .. (ha)
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
I'm convinced that there are two issues that neither side wants to see go away. Gun control and abortion. When those go away, you lose a shit ton of your voters because they make up the largest groups of one issue voters.
sharpy- Fanboy
- Posts : 915
Join date : 2017-05-10
alohafri wrote:I'm convinced that there are two issues that neither side wants to see go away. Gun control and abortion. When those go away, you lose a shit ton of your voters because they make up the largest groups of one issue voters.
I can't comprehend that anyone can have only ONE issue. It bogles my mind to think that people have only one thing that they feel is important in your life. Altho, to Rob's line of thinking, I was big on gun control, but have given up the fight - no longer believe it will ever occur until the masses rise up against the government and then to beat down the people, the autocracy will take away peoples guns.
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
sharpy wrote:alohafri wrote:I'm convinced that there are two issues that neither side wants to see go away. Gun control and abortion. When those go away, you lose a shit ton of your voters because they make up the largest groups of one issue voters.
I can't comprehend that anyone can have only ONE issue. It bogles my mind to think that people have only one thing that they feel is important in your life. Altho, to Rob's line of thinking, I was big on gun control, but have given up the fight - no longer believe it will ever occur until the masses rise up against the government and then to beat down the people, the autocracy will take away peoples guns.
That's how I see it, Tim. I'm about the most non-gun owning person in the US, and I've been thinking about buying one for reasons relating to the current political trend. If the people try rising up against this current regime, you'll see a very sudden change in how the right wing thinks about gun ownership. I just don't see RvW being overturned. Worst case, I view it as possibly being made nearly impossible to get an abortion in certain red states.
Abortion has people that'll vote red or blue just for that issue. Guns will cause people to vote red, but not really blue. I'm becoming a healthcare voter. I want to see us move toward single payer. Start by lowering the Medicare age to 55, and write into the legislation that it drops to 45 in another five years. Force the GOP to have to go in and repeal and undo that law after people get their hearts set on it. Rather than pushing for single payer as an issue, begin pushing to lower the age to 55. The folks in that 55-65 group will be enticed by that, and those are often GOP voters. I'd be a single issue voter for this.
SoxIlliniRob- Bova!
- Posts : 1942
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 58
Location : Saint Charles, IL
One thing I find myself most concerned about in this election is that I worry about the 5-10% of mail in votes that get tossed out for not having a closely enough matching signature. That'll be a major concern in PA. If PA is a 1-2% edge for Biden, having 5-10% of mail votes (which will be primarily Dem this year) tossed out will potentially pull 20k to 50k net Biden votes out of the count. That could swing the election. I wish people would just show up and vote in person.
blondy28- Bova!
- Posts : 1804
Join date : 2017-05-06
SoxIlliniRob wrote:One thing I find myself most concerned about in this election is that I worry about the 5-10% of mail in votes that get tossed out for not having a closely enough matching signature. That'll be a major concern in PA. If PA is a 1-2% edge for Biden, having 5-10% of mail votes (which will be primarily Dem this year) tossed out will potentially pull 20k to 50k net Biden votes out of the count. That could swing the election. I wish people would just show up and vote in person.
I'm not voting. Seriously. It's all going to be crooked. Do you follow Cheri Jacobus on Twitter? Long-time GOP pundit, strategist, etc. Used to see her on Politically Incorrect regularly, along with Kellyanne Conway. She's spot on in her tweets...hinting at things before they come out. Here's an interview of what Trump did to her:
https://gregolear.substack.com/p/blacklisted-an-interview-with-cheri
She was very worried about what Trump and Barr had planned, but was at least on the side of getting out in numbers so high that they can't cheat, but after RBG died, she's all in on Trump challenging it all the way to the Supreme Court, who will hand it to him, and that's exactly what will happen.
Greg Palast was on Joan Esposito's show last week talking about all the shenanigans with the voter roles and the mail-in ballot rules, which vary by state. Some states not only require the voter to sign their ballot, but also a witness, and the GOP will not only be challenging the voter signature, but also the witness. Another issue is if it's really hot, sometimes the adhesive on the envelope melts and people tape the envelope, and that gets tossed. Another thing is apparently they don't postmark the envelope when you mail it unless you go into the post office and ask them to postmark it, so if you're mailing it on the last day you can to have it count, you better go into the post office and ask them to postmark it. And that's only partially what can go wrong with mail in ballots. Voting in person isn't a guarantee either. 75,000+ ballots in Detroit not counted in 2016. A woman called into Joan's show to tell a story about her daughter, who is in college in South Carolina. She called her polling place to find out if she could register to vote with a driver's license from Illinois. They told her she could, that she would just have to bring a utility bill or something that showed her address in SC. She went in to register and when she was done they told her she would need a passport to vote. She doesn't have a passport, and if she tried to get one now, there's no guarantee that she would get it in time. Greg Palast said that SC is one of the worst states for voting.
So, yeah...I'm planning my exit strategy.
In other news, I'm on a Twitter timeout because I tweeted that I hope Mitch McConnell chokes on his saggy neck skin. Russia can install our president through Twitter, but my account is suspended.
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
Jesus H. Christ, it's not about Catholicism. It's about the political ideology! This isn't Goddamn 1960, you fucking wretched cunt!
blondy28- Bova!
- Posts : 1804
Join date : 2017-05-06
alohafri wrote:Jesus H. Christ, it's not about Catholicism. It's about the political ideology! This isn't Goddamn 1960, you fucking wretched cunt!
Laura Ingraham?
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
Gee, how did you guess. 75% of the sitting Supreme Court is either Catholic or was born Catholic, including the Chief Justice.
blondy28- Bova!
- Posts : 1804
Join date : 2017-05-06
alohafri wrote:Gee, how did you guess. 75% of the sitting Supreme Court is either Catholic or was born Catholic, including the Chief Justice.
Funny that these cultist don't come to the defense of Joe Biden...a lifetime Catholic.
blondy28- Bova!
- Posts : 1804
Join date : 2017-05-06
SoxIlliniRob wrote:One thing I find myself most concerned about in this election is that I worry about the 5-10% of mail in votes that get tossed out for not having a closely enough matching signature. That'll be a major concern in PA. If PA is a 1-2% edge for Biden, having 5-10% of mail votes (which will be primarily Dem this year) tossed out will potentially pull 20k to 50k net Biden votes out of the count. That could swing the election. I wish people would just show up and vote in person.
From The Atlantic:
Trump may test this. According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires.
Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have Republican legislative majorities. Of those, Arizona, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, have laws that remove the elector, who is replaced with one to vote for candidate who won the state. Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin allows the rogue electors' votes to stand.
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
blondy28 wrote:alohafri wrote:Gee, how did you guess. 75% of the sitting Supreme Court is either Catholic or was born Catholic, including the Chief Justice.
Funny that these cultist don't come to the defense of Joe Biden...a lifetime Catholic.
That's my point is that it's politics as usual. Some Catholics are so hyperfocused on being pro-life that they can't see that they are being taken advantage of. They are willing to listen to or vote for ANYONE who claims to be pro-life, actually, anti-abortion. I would bet my mortgage that they would support Jeffery Epstein for president if he said he was in favor of overturning Roe V. Wade...KNOWING that he would molest every child that was saved from abortion.
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
And the whacko Trumpists can stop showing that video clip of Biden's hand slipping down the arm of the young girl (who could be his granddaughter for all I know). It proves NOTHING. A pedophile doesn't do shit like that in public, especially where there are cameras.
blondy28- Bova!
- Posts : 1804
Join date : 2017-05-06
alohafri wrote:And the whacko Trumpists can stop showing that video clip of Biden's hand slipping down the arm of the young girl (who could be his granddaughter for all I know). It proves NOTHING. A pedophile doesn't do shit like that in public, especially where there are cameras.
They are quite accustomed to that kind of shit. We used to be warned about "stranger danger", but I think most thinking people know that any number of crimes against people are committed by people they know, from molestation to murder. Victims are carefully selected and groomed over time. These are the same people who claimed allowing transgender people to use the bathroom of the gender with which they identify is just allowing perpetrators to have easy access to their victims. Straight men aren't sitting in McDonald's for hours, wearing a dress, just for the opportunity to sexually assault a child in the bathroom. When the anti-trans people would speak at our board of education meetings, this was their claim. The fact is, male coaches of girls' sports teams are more likely to be perpetrators, and if they had a genuine fear of kids being put in situations that would result in them being victimized, then they would demand that schools not allow men to be coaches of women's sports teams...which would be awful, because gymnastics teams always have male coaches, whether as head coach, or assistant coach, because they're often the spotters.
alohafri- Bova!
- Posts : 1768
Join date : 2017-05-05
Age : 57
Location : Between Sarah Michelle Gellar's Legs
blondy28 wrote:alohafri wrote:And the whacko Trumpists can stop showing that video clip of Biden's hand slipping down the arm of the young girl (who could be his granddaughter for all I know). It proves NOTHING. A pedophile doesn't do shit like that in public, especially where there are cameras.
They are quite accustomed to that kind of shit. We used to be warned about "stranger danger", but I think most thinking people know that any number of crimes against people are committed by people they know, from molestation to murder. Victims are carefully selected and groomed over time. These are the same people who claimed allowing transgender people to use the bathroom of the gender with which they identify is just allowing perpetrators to have easy access to their victims. Straight men aren't sitting in McDonald's for hours, wearing a dress, just for the opportunity to sexually assault a child in the bathroom. When the anti-trans people would speak at our board of education meetings, this was their claim. The fact is, male coaches of girls' sports teams are more likely to be perpetrators, and if they had a genuine fear of kids being put in situations that would result in them being victimized, then they would demand that schools not allow men to be coaches of women's sports teams...which would be awful, because gymnastics teams always have male coaches, whether as head coach, or assistant coach, because they're often the spotters.
So you're saying you think Joe is a creep?
|
|
|