Doc Avid Mornington

I remember, so clearly, a conversation, debate, argument, with a relative, at a funeral ffs, in 2016. He was a Trump supporter. I was talking about all the awful, terrifying, heartbreaking things that Trump was indicating he would do. My relative said just that. None of that will happen, you’ll see, it will all be fine. Literally every one of those things happened. The indications of much worse things are even stronger this time. Wake up. None of that will happen, if, and only if, we fight like hell to stop it.

Who are the wrong people? Have people similar to them offered significant resistance to past fascist regimes?

Do you think that’s a realistic way to keep sufficient modern Internet traffic moving?

It’s not just men who support forced birth.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx

I appreciate the intent of your correction. For most abortions, yes, blastocyst. I’m not an expert, but I think that the body will usually safely flush out a failed blastocyst, and as the article said, many of these absolute nightmare scenarios cannot be diagnosed until well past that stage, so in this context, I think fetus is correct.

The only way they will “see the light” is if they look around their states and see no women; see no educated individuals; see no hard working youths; and see no business

I mean, they won’t “see no women”, women are nearly as likely to support forced birth as men. They don’t really care about the rest of that. They’d be quite glad to not have any opposition anymore, and be able to keep all those juicy senate seats and electoral college votes. Since they already have created an extremist Supreme Court, this would guarantee they wouldn’t lose the ability to veto or filibuster any attempt to fix it, while said Court continues to impose their views on the rest of the country.

*fetus

The thing is, I don’t really care what people “deserve”, or what they “don’t deserve”. How should I know? I’ll be a dork and quote Tolkien: “Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment.”

But I do care about who’s in the pact. We have an agreement, between us, we decent people. We watch out for each other. We protect each other. Or if we can’t, when something terrible is done to somebody, at the very least, we speak out, in protest, in sympathy, in sorrow. And the people covered by this pact, as far as I’m concerned, are the people who follow it - that’s it, the sole criteria for membership, about the lowest bar possible.

I’m not going to force somebody to carry a dead fetus because they forced other people to do so, but when the cruel laws they always thought would only apply to other people suddenly apply to them, I don’t owe them my sympathy either. They aren’t in the pact.

It’s important to spay and neuter our pets, but the dogs deserve to have their balls treated more respectfully than that.

Are you claiming that wanting to make antidemocratic rules more democratic is authoritarian? Who wanted to ignore the popular vote? And how, exactly, does the comment you replied to suggest that Bernie was entitled to the nomination? The voters are entitled to get the candidate they want.

How do you conclude that I’m not considering that? Escalation doesn’t reduce that risk.

Bernie might have the right idea in a ideal world, but in reality it’s not a great take and it makes other Democrats look bad that are having to make the difficult decisions which again spreads apathy.

It’s hard for me to read this as “not advocating for one way or another”, given that what Bernie is doing is saying to step back from the unquestioning full-throttle support of the Netanyahu government. If you think that’s a bad take, the only conclusion I can draw is that you are advocating for that full support of what they’re doing.

To be fair, a lot of the other things you’ve said indicate otherwise, so I guess I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.

Because the Democrats are conservatives.

AOC has made mistakes, but tearing down the left-most Members of Congress for not being left-enough will only push Congress right.

I highly recommend this episode of Unfucking the Republic: https://www.unftr.com/episodes/topical13

The Bush government response after 9/11 increased radicalization, strengthened Al Qaeda, and decreased support for the US. It put us in more danger, in order to destabilize the Middle East, advance US imperialism, and line the pockets of international arms profiteers.

The Netanyahu government response after 10/7 increased radicalization, strengthened Hamas, and decreased support for Israel. It put them in more danger, in order to destabilize the Middle East, advance US imperialism, and line the pockets of international arms profiteers.

Maybe you’re correct that some action, other than strict defense, would be best, but that’s not on the table, here. In this context, the choice is between further funding the worst choice, or not doing that. What makes Democrats look bad is how many of them support further funding the worst case.

And that right there is why thugs with badges always get acquitted. A cop isn’t a judge, jury, or executioner. I don’t care what she thought she knew already, there is no excuse for this kind of violent assault against someone who still holds the legal presumption of innocence. She is a criminal and belongs behind bars.

Their decisions are logical based on their map, which is grossly inconsistent with the territory. Better?

If murder was legal, and somebody who was known to have committed murder was running, and you were confident that person would make murder illegal, and you were convinced that their opponent (who may have never committed murder themselves) would actively encourage more murder, maybe even pay poor people to commit murder, which candidate would you vote for?

Technically, I’d say “increasingly inevitable” is a meaningless phrase. “Inevitable” is an absolute - an outcome either is, or is not, inevitable. Like they say, “you can’t be a little bit pregnant”, outcomes cannot be a little bit inevitable, or somewhat inevitable, or mostly inevitable, so the degree of inevitability cannot be increasing.

However, I think most native English speakers would not think twice about it, and would read it as something like: “a Trump dictatorship is approaching inevitability.” That’s how I read it, at least.

If one party ignores the rules, while the other party follows them, the party with no regard for the rules will take all the power, and we definitely won’t have a democracy anymore.

Marriage predates any modern religion, and likely predates organized religion entirely. Marriage is a civil institution. Marriage belongs to all of us, not just churches, not just the religious. Don’t let them take it.