Let's talk about that federal abortion bill

[Deleted member 586536]

It doesn't "match" what you or OP have been saying.

Uh. What part of
"the Republican party wants to ban abortions"
do you not understand?
Me:"Republicans want to ban abortions, it's clear by their current actions"
Xzi:"Republicans want to ban abortions, it's clear by their rhetoric and past"
citing different aspects of the same reason is called "critical thinking/reasoning"
If you're trying to act that's somehow different,
go home @tabzer you're fooling nobody but yourself.

 

[Xzi]

You want to use the news as a leverage for some sort of narrative, but then you want to say what the news is "really saying".

JFC, it's literally the first sentence of the article. "Lindsey Graham’s anti-abortion legislation once unified the Republican Party. The 15-week abortion ban he pitched Tuesday had the exact opposite effect." They were all-in on this shit before midterm polls started souring on them. That's what it's really saying.

Yet another quote that reinforces my position: "Coming less than 60 days before the midterms, it’s riled some Republicans, who are watching their once-dominant polling advantage shrink since the Roe reversal."

You are on your own and footing for the democrats because they are the "lesser pedophile".

I'm not footing for anybody, I'm solely calling the Republican party out for being a bunch of hypocritical jackasses. I can't be blamed for the fact that we only have one party that's an alternative to them in this country.

Start a real party you hobo.

No problem, in a post-Citizens' United country that'll only require a few billion dollars. Surely with all your "success" you'll have no problem lending me that much.

 

[tabzer]

Uh. What part of
"the Republican party wants to ban abortions"
do you not understand?
Me:"Republicans want to ban abortions, it's clear by their current actions"
Xzi:"Republicans want to ban abortions, it's clear by their rhetoric and past"
citing different aspects of the same reason is called "critical thinking/reasoning"
If your trying to act that's somehow different.
Go home @tabzer you're fooling nobody but yourself.

Cool. Let me know when this is true:

Also also Republicans:
"We use big government to ban abortions."

Everyone already knows that republicans want to ban abortions. And they do it. But the whole point of this brand new thread is based on fake information.

 

[tabzer]

JFC, it's literally the first sentence of the article. "Lindsey Graham’s anti-abortion legislation once unified the Republican Party. The 15-week abortion ban he pitched Tuesday had the exact opposite effect." They were all-in on this shit before midterm polls started souring on them. That's what it's really saying.

Yet another quote that reinforces my position: "Coming less than 60 days before the midterms, it’s riled some Republicans, who are watching their once-dominant polling advantage shrink since the Roe reversal."

So which is it. Is it unifying the GOP or not? Are you not cherry picking facts? Do you want to talk about what is, or do you want to talk about the future. If you are wanting to talk about the future, it does nobody any good to pretend that it is already true.

I'm not footing for anybody, I'm solely calling the Republican party out for being a bunch of hypocritical jackasses. I can't be blamed for the fact that we only have one party that's an alternative to them in this country.

"I'm not footing for the democratic party." "I'm footing for the democratic party because I have no choice." You are conflicted.

No problem, in a post-Citizens' United country that'll only require a few billion dollars. Surely with all your "success" you'll have no problem lending me that much.

"I'll just vote for pedophiles because it is inconvenient to represent my interests."

Starting your own party doesn't cost billions of dollars, and the point of a democracy isn't to win at all costs. It's to create methods of truly representing the interests of people. Even if you lose an election, you are still on paper, you are demonstrating an interest, you are creating a following.

You are truly pathetic and you love it.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

Cool. Let me know when this is true:


Nothereed said:
Also also Republicans:
"We use big government to ban abortions."

Everyone already knows that republicans want to ban abortions. And they do it. But the whole point of this brand new thread is based on fake information.

Tabzer the contortionist.
Trying to speedrun disproving yourself in the same post? that's a new record.

Tabzer:"They don't use big government. They just haven't used it yet! and that's the fake news! I'd admit they would ban abortion. But they haven't done it yet!"

 

[Deleted member 586536]

"I'll just vote for pedophiles because it is inconvenient to represent my interests."

Source that xzi would do that? Or are you just baslessly attacking people again because your feelings got hurt.
I presume the latter.

 

[tabzer]

Tabzer the contortionist.
Trying to speedrun disproving yourself in the same post? that's a new record.

Aren't you conveniently ignoring the part where you lied and the only point that I presented a disagreement?

Also also Republicans:
"We use big government to ban abortions."

Being anti-republican doesn't stop you from being a liar or a pos.

Source that xzi would do that? Or are you just baslessly attacking people again because your feelings got hurt.

There's already a thread where Xzi is justifying Biden as president because Trump "has 'more' evidence of being a pedophile."

 

[Deleted member 586536]

There's already a thread where Xzi is justifying Biden as president because Trump "has more evidence of being a pedophile."

So let me get this straight.
You would want to attack someone, that has less evidence?
huh... interesting.
That reminds me of a thread.

Some people think it is reasonable to assume someone is guilty, not only based on statistics, but a false misrepresentation of them (ie. 5% of claims are false, so therefore 95% of men rape women).

Tabzer eating his own words when?
You have less evidence that Biden is a pedo, and more evidence that Trump is. And yet, you want to prosecute Biden, and protect Trump...
So uh, what part of misrepresentation are we talking here Tabzer? The kind that only applies when it's convenient?

 

[Deleted member 586536]

Aren't you conveniently ignoring the part where you lied and the only point that I presented a disagreement?

More like you trying to twist words. Which would be awfully convenient if you just ignored the part where I told you it made sense. oh wait. You already did conveniently miss it.
here is that part by the way.

Uh. What part of
"the Republican party wants to ban abortions"
do you not understand?
Me:"Republicans want to ban abortions, it's clear by their current actions"
Xzi:"Republicans want to ban abortions, it's clear by their rhetoric and past"
citing different aspects of the same reason is called "critical thinking/reasoning"
If you're trying to act that's somehow different,
go home @tabzer you're fooling nobody but yourself.

 

[tabzer]

You would want to attack someone, that has less evidence?
huh... interesting.
That reminds me of a thread.

Okay, this is getting interesting. You are revealing the threshold of your literacy in ways that you haven't before.

Accused pedophiles should be investigated, no matter their political affiliation. @idiot.

Tabzer eating his own words when?
You have less evidence that Biden is a pedo, and more evidence that Trump is. And yet, you want to prosecute Biden, and protect Trump...
So uh, what part of misrepresentation are we talking here Tabzer? The kind that only applies when it's convenient?

It is not reasonable to assume someone is guilty based on statistics, but on facts.

Can you enlighten me on where you see an actual contradiction?

Edit: Okay so you think people are Biden supporters or Trump supporters. Whether 10,000 4chan threads constitute as more evidence than direct video could be debatable.

 

[tabzer]

More like you trying to twist words. Which would be awfully convenient if you just ignored the part where I told you it made sense. oh wait. You already did conveniently miss it.
here is that part by the way.

Can you show us where that replaces what the OP already said?

 

[Deleted member 586536]

Accused pedophiles should be investigated, no matter their political affiliation. @idiot.

But your saying that not all rape accusations should be taken as seriously.

Don't worry, get dinged by yourself a second time

Oh my gosh. I, too, think it is morally wrong to broadcast an accusation as "news". Wth?

Can you show us where that replaces what the OP already said?

I am the op @idiot.

 

[tabzer]

But your saying that not all rape accusations should be taken as seriously.

All rape accusations should be taken seriously and investigated. Assuming someone is guilty because of statistics is dumb. Learn to read, reed.

 

[Xzi]

So which is it. Is it unifying the GOP or not?

Previously, yes. Now, no. At least not explicitly, they still support it implicitly. Almost like they're spineless liars or something.

"I'm not footing for the democratic party." "I'm footing for the democratic party because I have no choice." You are conflicted.

Bashing Republicans =/= talking up Democrats. All I've done in this thread is the former.

Starting your own party doesn't cost billions of dollars, and the point of a democracy isn't to win at all costs. It's to create methods of truly representing the interests of people. Even if you lose an election, you are still on paper, you are demonstrating an interest, you are creating a following.

In that case, the DSA is already an existing thing that I support both monetarily and vocally. As is unionization.

There's already a thread where Xzi is justifying Biden as president because Trump "has 'more' evidence of being a pedophile."

There's not enough evidence to convict either of them, so it's a moot point. I was simply demonstrating another person's double-standard in that regard.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

It is not reasonable to assume someone is guilty based on statistics, but on facts.

You conveniently ignoring that Trump had ties to Epstein. You conveniently ignoring sexual comments about his own daughter and all the very sketchy shit he has done with her. Conveniently leaving out the fact that he already treats women like shit in general, so why would we expect him to treat younger ones normal. The only sign we have that Biden might be a pedophile, is his awkard interactions with kids. Investigate the more likely pedo first, or hell do both.

Assuming someone is guilty because of statistics is dumb

So in other words, awfully convenient for you to ignore the facts mr tabzer.

 

[tabzer]

I am the op @idiot.

Contextually, original post. Why @ yourself?

 

[tabzer]

Previously, yes. Now, no. At least not explicitly, they still support it implicitly. Almost like they're spineless liars or something.

Maybe we are gearing up for another mythical party switch.

Bashing Republicans =/= talking up Democrats. All I've done in this thread is the former.

You literally just inferred that you supported democrats because you have no other choice. Lol.

In that case, the DSA is already an existing thing that I support both monetarily and vocally. As is unionization.

Did you vote for them, or Biden?

There's not enough evidence to convict either of them, so it's a moot point. I was simply demonstrating another person's double-standard in that regard.

You explicitly argued that Trump had more evidence against him instead of arguing that it was a moot point, so I don't buy it.

You conveniently ignoring that Trump had ties to Epstein. You conveniently ignoring sexual comments about his own daughter and all the very sketchy shit he has done with her. Conveniently leaving out the fact that he already treats women like shit in general, so why would we expect him. The only sign we have that Biden might be a pedophile, is his interactions with children

I'm not ignoring any of that. If you want to tell me how that relates to how Republicans are using big government to ban abortion (they're not), or to anything I've said, then I'd be happy to oblige. You obviously missed the point that you are rationalizing "lesser pedophilia" by using the comparison as an argument.

 

[Xzi]

Maybe we are gearing up for another mythical party switch.

The hell does that have to do with Republicans trying to cover their tracks on support for a national abortion ban?

You literally just inferenced that you supported democrats because you have no other choice. Lol.

No, I said there's one alternative party with a presence on the national level. That's it.

Did you vote for them, or Biden?

The DSA did not have a candidate running for president. I wrote in Bernie, if you must know.

You explicitly argued that Trump had more evidence against him instead of arguing that it was a moot point, so I don't buy it.

Right, and I also stated that I have no problem calling out both Biden and Trump for inappropriate behavior. The guy I was talking to was only willing to call out one of them, thus the double standard I was demonstrating for readers.

 

[tabzer]

The hell does that have to do with Republicans trying to cover their tracks on support for a national abortion ban?

You say they are trying to cover their tracks, but they could be trying to make a change. Both claims don't rationalize the disinformational OP.

No, I said there's one alternative party with a presence on the national level. That's it.

You said that in response to me saying that you are footing the Democrats. It could only be interpreted as an excuse.

The DSA did not have a candidate running for president. I wrote in Bernie, if you must know.

Ok, I respect you a little more now despite the real possibility of you lying. (But still, after he threw you under the bus?)

 

[Xzi]

You say they are trying to cover their tracks, but they could be trying to make a change.

In which case they'd make a change to the party's official policy platform, not some minor performative mental gymnastics on the individual level, and not right before midterms. Graham just didn't get the memo in time.

You said that in response to me saying that you are footing the Democrats. It could only be interpreted as an excuse.

I said I can't be blamed for the two-party system, which remains true. Neither party is representative of working class interests, but only one of them has been actively hostile toward the working class in recent years.

As has been mentioned previously in this thread, abortion bans are all about reducing our leverage over capitalists and providing more bodies for the meat grinder (military industrial complex). Provide better material conditions and social safety nets, a higher birth rate naturally follows. You can't put the cart before the horse though, and stripping people of individual rights and liberties will always be met with backlash.