2019-2020 US Elections Megathread I- It Begins

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I don't see why it matters if the unborn are alive, though very obviously they are. We already accept as a society that there are circumstances in which it is acceptable to kill people.

This argument will not convince any pro-lifers.

[Aclion]

I don't see why it matters if the unborn are alive, though very obviously they are. We already accept as a society that there are circumstances in which it is acceptable to kill people.

"I don't want that person around anymore" isn't one of those circumstances though.

Hold on, I never said anything about advocating for female supremacy, I was merely pointing out that a woman's body and what goes on in it is her business and her business alone and that it shouldn't be up to anyone else what goes on. The next part was just stating that, to ensure that it stays that way, we shouldn't try to alienate anyone who might be supportive of such an idea.

The concept that only those directly.effected by a law should have a say on it is preposterous.

It also cant' be applied to abortion, as abortion laws do affect men.

[Telconi]

The concept that only those directly.effected by a law should have a say on it is preposterous.

I think what they're saying is that men shouldn't be able to dictate what should be done in response to a problem that's (excluding transgender people) faced exclusively by women, which I must say is fairly reasonable in concept (although I do disagree with it).

I understand that, which is why I think it preposterous.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

I don't see why it matters if the unborn are alive, though very obviously they are. We already accept as a society that there are circumstances in which it is acceptable to kill people.

"I don't want that person around anymore" isn't one of those circumstances though.

The Middle East called, they'd like a citation for that.

[Shrillland]

I think what they're saying is that men shouldn't be able to dictate what should be done in response to a problem that's (excluding transgender people) faced exclusively by women, which I must say is fairly reasonable in concept (although I do disagree with it).

I understand that, which is why I think it preposterous.

I understand, don't get me wrong, men have just as much a say in making these laws as women do, that's only reasonable. I was mostly referring to the fact that people who say "men have no right to discuss abortion", if you look at my op on this particular section, can dissuade and alienate pro-choice men like myself from speaking up for women.

[Ifreann]

I don't see why it matters if the unborn are alive, though very obviously they are. We already accept as a society that there are circumstances in which it is acceptable to kill people.

It matters because murder is a crime, and we need to convince people that abortion is not it.

Well, no, you don't, abortion is already legal and people who think it's murder can't do anything about that. But that aside, if you want to convince people that abortion isn't murder, "Well it doesn't count because the foetus isn't alive" isn't going to convince anyone, even if it is technically correct in some sense. And I don't see how it could possibly be correct.

---

I don't see why it matters if the unborn are alive, though very obviously they are. We already accept as a society that there are circumstances in which it is acceptable to kill people.

This argument will not convince any pro-lifers.

Not immediately, but it gives them space to convince themselves that abortion is still bad, but it can be justifiable.

---

I don't see why it matters if the unborn are alive, though very obviously they are. We already accept as a society that there are circumstances in which it is acceptable to kill people.

"I don't want that person around anymore" isn't one of those circumstances though.

When "around" is "literally inside me" it rather is.

[Bear Stearns]

Rhode Island could and people still wouldn't notice-not even the electoral college.

Alternate universe where Kansas is a Democratic bastion in a sea of red and Rhode Island is a Republic stronghold surrounded by blue

Also in this universe Ross Perot became president

Had things taken a different turn after FDR's term ended, the Democrats could have become the populist party combining New Deal economics with social conservatism, and the Republicans would have remained the liberal party of the business establishment.

If that were so, Kansas would easily be a blue state and Rhode Island could easily be a red state.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

It matters because murder is a crime, and we need to convince people that abortion is not it.

Well, no, you don't, abortion is already legal and people who think it's murder can't do anything about that. But that aside, if you want to convince people that abortion isn't murder, "Well it doesn't count because the foetus isn't alive" isn't going to convince anyone, even if it is technically correct in some sense. And I don't see how it could possibly be correct.

The argument is that, until it can biologically function outside the womb, it counts more as an internal organ.
But that aside, I don't see how "yeah, they're people, but it doesn't matter if we kill them" is going to convince anyone either.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I think what they're saying is that men shouldn't be able to dictate what should be done in response to a problem that's (excluding transgender people) faced exclusively by women, which I must say is fairly reasonable in concept (although I do disagree with it).

I understand that, which is why I think it preposterous.

No no Telconi, this is a great idea and we should apply it to all topics, we're this close to repealing Hughes dammit

[Telconi]

It matters because murder is a crime, and we need to convince people that abortion is not it.

Well, no, you don't, abortion is already legal and people who think it's murder can't do anything about that. But that aside, if you want to convince people that abortion isn't murder, "Well it doesn't count because the foetus isn't alive" isn't going to convince anyone, even if it is technically correct in some sense. And I don't see how it could possibly be correct.

---

This argument will not convince any pro-lifers.

Not immediately, but it gives them space to convince themselves that abortion is still bad, but it can be justifiable.

---

"I don't want that person around anymore" isn't one of those circumstances though.

When "around" is "literally inside me" it rather is.

I mean, laws can be changed.

Sure, but despite believing it's sometimes justifiable, I still believe the vast majority of abortions are not.

Naw bro.

[Telconi]

I understand that, which is why I think it preposterous.

No no Telconi, this is a great idea and we should apply it to all topics, we're this close to repealing Hughes dammit

Well we can apply it to guns for sure.

[The Alma Mater]

The right to bodily autonomy, however, is what they take issue with.

They do not take issue with bodily autonomy, they take issue with what they see as murdering babies.

They take issue with the idea that a human can refuse to be hooked up to another human for 9 months.

[Shrillland]

Returning to the issue at hand: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cory-booker-proposes-national-gun-licensing-program/ar-AAAY89V

I'm not sure about this, tbh. Although I support strengthened background checks and banning full assault weapons, there are two amendments that Booker's plan violates, the 10th and the 14th.

[Loben The 2nd]

Returning to the issue at hand: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cory-booker-proposes-national-gun-licensing-program/ar-AAAY89V

I'm not sure about this, tbh. Although I support strengthened background checks and banning full assault weapons, there are two amendments that Booker's plan violates, the 10th and the 14th.

The fuck is a full assault weapon?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Returning to the issue at hand: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cory-booker-proposes-national-gun-licensing-program/ar-AAAY89V

I'm not sure about this, tbh. Although I support strengthened background checks and banning full assault weapons, there are two amendments that Booker's plan violates, the 10th and the 14th.

The fuck is a full assault weapon?

I think the word they were going for was "fully automatic".

[Shrillland]

Returning to the issue at hand: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cory-booker-proposes-national-gun-licensing-program/ar-AAAY89V

I'm not sure about this, tbh. Although I support strengthened background checks and banning full assault weapons, there are two amendments that Booker's plan violates, the 10th and the 14th.

The fuck is a full assault weapon?

I got my words mixed up, I just meant assault weapons, which we already ban right now of course.

[Shrillland]

Returning to the issue at hand: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cory-booker-proposes-national-gun-licensing-program/ar-AAAY89V

I'm not sure about this, tbh. Although I support strengthened background checks and banning full assault weapons, there are two amendments that Booker's plan violates, the 10th and the 14th.

The fuck is a full assault weapon?

I got my words mixed up, I just meant assault weapons, which we already ban right now of course.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Returning to the issue at hand: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cory-booker-proposes-national-gun-licensing-program/ar-AAAY89V

I'm not sure about this, tbh. Although I support strengthened background checks and banning full assault weapons, there are two amendments that Booker's plan violates, the 10th and the 14th.

The Dems literally just need to leave guns alone. This is a topic they routinely lose on and it only helps the GOP get more votes.

[Shrillland]

Returning to the issue at hand: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cory-booker-proposes-national-gun-licensing-program/ar-AAAY89V

I'm not sure about this, tbh. Although I support strengthened background checks and banning full assault weapons, there are two amendments that Booker's plan violates, the 10th and the 14th.

The Dems literally just need to leave guns alone. This is a topic they routinely lose on and it only helps the GOP get more votes.

Aye, but like the other topic we just mentioned, it's an emotional issue for a lot of people who end up talking out of their arses, often not fully realising that they're doing so.

[Ifreann]

Well, no, you don't, abortion is already legal and people who think it's murder can't do anything about that. But that aside, if you want to convince people that abortion isn't murder, "Well it doesn't count because the foetus isn't alive" isn't going to convince anyone, even if it is technically correct in some sense. And I don't see how it could possibly be correct.

The argument is that, until it can biologically function outside the womb, it counts more as an internal organ.

Do you think that your organs aren't alive?

But that aside, I don't see how "yeah, they're people, but it doesn't matter if we kill them" is going to convince anyone either.

I'd say it has a better chance than telling people that they are literally dead inside.

---

Well, no, you don't, abortion is already legal and people who think it's murder can't do anything about that. But that aside, if you want to convince people that abortion isn't murder, "Well it doesn't count because the foetus isn't alive" isn't going to convince anyone, even if it is technically correct in some sense. And I don't see how it could possibly be correct.

---

Not immediately, but it gives them space to convince themselves that abortion is still bad, but it can be justifiable.

---

When "around" is "literally inside me" it rather is.

I mean, laws can be changed.

Given that the applicable law is the US Constitution, a change isn't terribly likely. You don't tend to amend your constitution often. We're amending ours again at the end of the month, probably. And I think this'd make 39 amendments.

Sure, but despite believing it's sometimes justifiable, I still believe the vast majority of abortions are not.

Naw bro.

No? I would have thought you'd be entirely in favour of the right to use lethal force to secure one's bodily sovereignty. Isn't that what you have all those guns for?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Returning to the issue at hand: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cory-booker-proposes-national-gun-licensing-program/ar-AAAY89V

I'm not sure about this, tbh. Although I support strengthened background checks and banning full assault weapons, there are two amendments that Booker's plan violates, the 10th and the 14th.

The Dems literally just need to leave guns alone. This is a topic they routinely lose on and it only helps the GOP get more votes.

The Democratic Party couldn't organize its way out of a paper bag, WRA. There's no way that they could just abandon an issue this big without losing a lot of support.

[Valrifell]

Returning to the issue at hand: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cory-booker-proposes-national-gun-licensing-program/ar-AAAY89V

I'm not sure about this, tbh. Although I support strengthened background checks and banning full assault weapons, there are two amendments that Booker's plan violates, the 10th and the 14th.

The Dems literally just need to leave guns alone. This is a topic they routinely lose on and it only helps the GOP get more votes.

The GOP has been so successful at turning guns into a cultural wedge issue, that I don't think the bulk of gun-voters can ever really be swayed to vote Democrat. They'll be reminded of past events, even if Dems drop the issue now.

[Vassenor]

Returning to the issue at hand: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cory-booker-proposes-national-gun-licensing-program/ar-AAAY89V

I'm not sure about this, tbh. Although I support strengthened background checks and banning full assault weapons, there are two amendments that Booker's plan violates, the 10th and the 14th.

The Dems literally just need to leave guns alone. This is a topic they routinely lose on and it only helps the GOP get more votes.

Abandon an issue with widespread popular support?

[Loben The 2nd]

The fuck is a full assault weapon?

I got my words mixed up, I just meant assault weapons, which we already ban right now of course.

What is an assault weapon?

[Shrillland]

The Dems literally just need to leave guns alone. This is a topic they routinely lose on and it only helps the GOP get more votes.

Abandon an issue with widespread popular support?

And just as widespread popular opposition. The NRA may be tottering, but there are still groups like the even more gun-friendly GOA, and a lot of people simply don't want to give up their guns whether there are actual plans to do so or not. This plan doesn't even do that, but it does technically deny due process and bring the federal government into the creation of a form of national licence or ID, something the 10th Amendment effectively says is solely the states' responsibility.