ha! you just called me wise. Now i know you are off your rocker. Lol. i disagree though. Choice implies many things. I know the movement label. But its misleading and could be misunderstood. i prefer pro abortion with limits.
It is bringing about a certain amount of consternation on the left, though. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...claim-divides-democrats-as-republicans-pounce
That story got me when it came out. Right before she was set to go onstage... How people that are so outspoken on harassment can support this guy is beyond me.
...pro choice/pro abortion is splitting hairs...ultimately, it's still up to the woman, which is her "choice", as it should be.
Awww cute rephrasing. “Woman’s right to choose” is an extremely vague term that doesn’t address the issue of abortion at face value. It’s a way for people on the left “clean up” the word abortion. Lefties absolutely love science when they get to bash climate deniers or religious people, but things get dicey when they have to talk about gender or abortion. Then things become “fluid” and they get to invent little phrases to make their fairytale science sound less like bullshit.
You cheat on our forum with another one? That's really disappointing. Please don't demean us further by claiming that that forum doesn't mean anything and you save your biggest political opinions for us. (But also please don't describe what it's like with that other forum. It hurts.)
It's not "cute rephrasing", or cleaning it up. It's that no one uses the term "pro abortion". I don't know anyone who thinks "awesome! she had an abortion! I'm totally in favor of that!". Saying it should be called "pro abortion" is purposely using phrasing to agitate people.
I will reconsider how I view the label, but again, I respectfully disagree. Though I do think Pro choice leaves room for much ambiguity and that is my reason for considering it pro abortion, there was never an intent to agitate anyone. Maybe some who use the term do so for those purposes, but in my instance, there is no ill intent, its just to me the English language can really be twisted easily, so its important to be clear and concise (I fail to do so like all at times) to avoid misunderstanding like we had earlier. Not every stance is taken in spite of the opposition. Some actually have structural foundations of which the opinions were built upon. Not just built on causing agitation to the opposition.
You put way more credence in that vetting than it warrants, IMO. They found nothing, including apparently the now well documented hair sniffing and personal space invading personality quirks of Joe Biden. Unless you think Obama was briefed on that and concluded that creepy behavior couldn’t possibly be a problem for his administration.
The Obama campaign already came out and addressed it and stated that Biden would not have been vetted if they found anything like what Reade is alleging. Spin it any way you want, but that's the facts.
Found being the operative word. That they didn’t find it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It only means they didn’t find it. Do you think Kavanaugh wasn’t vetted by Trump’s team before advancing him as a nominee for the Supreme Court? Do you think they would have put him forward if they had found something like Blasey-Ford’s accusation? I have no opinion either way about either accusation except that it is possible either or both women are telling the truth, delusional or lying their ass(es) off. The only point I’m trying to make in prodding you on this is to recognize that our political leanings color our views to such an extent that we can be hard-wired to accept whatever “truth” fits most consistently with those leanings. I have decided for myself to push back against those tendencies. In these divided times, I wish more people would.
Considering it's not obvious that Trump actually believes women are ever assaulted, I'd say no they didn't vet him for shit. Also considering the inept people he's had in his cabinet, and close to him, I'd also say no. Yes.
I doubt kavanugh was vetted very well as it has been shown in many of the appointees by trump had issues and we are now 3 to 4 deep in most positions so obviously whatever vetting process they were using wasn't very good. It was probabley something like this "Do you promise to be loyal to trump and protect him at all costs?" If the answer is yes, then he's vetted.
Unlike you, i'm not on a mission to change anyones mind as i simply voice my opinions. Agree with them or disagree with them doesn't make any difference to me.
