(05-09-2022 02:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2022 01:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2022 12:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-07-2022 05:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Interesting to read your posts and reasoning, Lad.

All it takes to introduce a bill is one legislator. It takes a majority in both houses to pass it.

So, if one legislator were to introduce a bill saying every taxpayer in (name a state) would have to "donate" $1000 to a reparations fund, does that indicate that that is the future course of said state?

Believe me, I am not moving to Costa Rica or California based on one or even a couple of extremists (left or right) do.

I think most legislatures are peopled with persons more to the center. A combination (in Texas and other Red states) of a solid bloc of Democrats and a share of Republicans will result in more moderate laws in those states. As I said, I think the passage of those "trigger" statutes were primarily political ploys.

But time will tell. I expect the first legislatures after the returning of the question to the states will give us a preview of things to come.

Personally, I think all the angst I am hearing about the dismal future of same sex marriages, interracial marriages, and the inspection of autos leaving the state are just so much "The sky is falling", as are the claims that the ruling is the result of decades of grooming judges to make just this ruling (I posted a video). I also think the claims of a fascist takeover are overblown.

Let's use common sense. The Red team is not monolithically anti-abortion, no matter what Joy Behar or Elizabeth Warren says. Even the much hated Texas and Mississippi laws do not ban abortion. The argument is over WHEN to disallow it.

It will take some time, but most red states will gravitate toward the middle, while most blue states will go even farther left, so the eventual result will be more abortion, not less.

I guess the Green New Deal should never be used by you as a talking point against Dems, after all, it hasn’t been passed…

You fundamentally misstate what typically has been noted -- GND is used as a specific Democratic platform that has support amongst Democrats and promulgated by them. In short, it is evidence of the extreme positions of Democrats.

It is *not* used as 'well, this is evidence of *where* the nation is headed to as a general rule' as you seemingly try to do.

If you want to be consistent, feel free to use that proposed La. law as an example of 'edge positions' that Republicans can take (and have taken in this case).

Quote:I agree that what a single politician suggests isn’t indicative of where a state will go. But as you get more support, and the proposal moves further in the direction of being signed, that evidence gets stronger and stronger. And my example has actually made it out of committee.

Again, whoop de fing do. Still doesnt rise to the 'clamor level' that you wish to ascribe to it imo. Again, I know that similar 'way off the fing edge' positions have arisen to committee in other jurisdictions in a similar yet opposite fashion. Somehow those positions and actions fail to yield a similar comment from you. Interesting.

I guess in your analysis that the following holds as an eternal truth: When a right position comes out of any state legislature committee, it is deigned to be 'evidence of the current screech point of the left of how far something will be taken'. When a corresponding left position comes out of committee, it really isnt worth talking about. Accurate for you?

I mean, it is a free country and all that jazz, and as such you are free to soundly opine that this one particular state issue that merely made it out of committee is solid proof of 'direction of group' en masse. Seems like some pretty fing thin gruel to me, but please keep serving it up some some more.

Quote:Time will tell if Louisiana and other states act more moderately as you suggest they do, and hopefully you’re right. But at this moment, I don’t see these states vocalizing that they will act more moderately - I see the opposite. So I don’t share the same optimism about the future of reproductive health laws.

Not surprising.

Quote:I’ll add that moving further left of abortion access does not inherently mean more abortions will happen - it means more LEGAL abortions will happen. And heck, if coupled with increased support or funding for sex education and contraception access, you may actually see a decrease in abortions (see Colorado’s work with IUD access for example).

Per definition, when one legalizes abortion up until term, your first sentence falls out as a matter of fundamental logic, and isnt nearly as earth shattering as you might surmise.

Like this ---- If you make bank robbery legal in all instances, more legal bank robberies will happen.... You dont say...... amazing.......

To the last point, you're intentionally avoiding my point or intentionally misconstruing it. I know you know exactly what I am saying with respect to the argument OO made that enacting more liberal abortion laws will result in more abortions.

To the last point, I am simply pointing out the logical conclusion of your predicate, that is of precisely what you said.

I find it interesting that when you make a stupid statement, it is always everyone else's *intentional* fault. Perhaps you could say : "Maybe I wasnt clear enough."

I guess you are now tilting to the 'everyone should infer *exactly* what lad meant even when he didnt say it'. That is as opposed to the other spectrum side that you invariably take when one actually infers, and you pipe up 'that isnt what I said.'

But no -- you have to go on the offensive where it is obviously not just my issue for your unclear statement, but my *intentional* issue. Grow up. I took your first sentence for what it said. I guess now I shouldnt have. Got it.

I read your comment as two statements. And that is the way it is written. Statement 1: You dont have more abortions, you have more LEGAL abortions. Statement 2: You might even have less abortions.

The second is a prediction. The first is not so bright rhetoric. And the two sentences say different things when you actually read the words. But I forgot --- we must always infer precisely what you intended to write at all times. Sounds fun. That is at all times until we actually infer something and you snap 'I didnt say that' in response. Again, sounds fun.