trump off the CO ballot

[arthwollipot]

Freedom for me to do what I want. The rest of you can get fucked.

[sparks]

Freedom for me to do what I want. The rest of you can get fucked.

So long as you act responsibly. If you choose unwisely, a ton of societal and law enforcement shit will fall on you.

[stanky]

Freedom for me to do what I want. The rest of you can get fucked.

That's the virus (sociopathy) speaking.

[arthwollipot]

Freedom for me to do what I want. The rest of you can get fucked.

So long as you act responsibly. If you choose unwisely, a ton of societal and law enforcement shit will fall on you.

How big do you want government to be?

[President Bush]

[sparks]

Freedom for me to do what I want. The rest of you can get fucked.

So long as you act responsibly. If you choose unwisely, a ton of societal and law enforcement shit will fall on you.

How big do you want government to be?

The size of government and you acting irresponsibly with your 'freedom' and the consequences of same are not directly related IMHO. So, non sequitur.

[Meadmaker]

I just watched the veep debate. I thought both candidates did a good job. It was not the first time I've found myself wishing we could get rid of the guys at the top of the ticket.

I think the Republicans will once again complain about moderator bias, but it wasn't nearly as blatant this time. I don't think SNL will be mocking the moderators this time around.

As for who won? As with the Presidential debate, it's hard to put myself in the head of an undecided voter to try and understand which points might move the needle in terms of actual votes. I think Walz scored some good hits that Vance looked awfully slippery trying to avoid, especially related to Trump losing in 2020. So, I think probably Walz won it, but I suppose I'll watch some post mortems from media sources to see if there was some moment that I didn't think was important, but will be pushed.

There was one thing about it that I found a bit irritating, though. One thing Vance brought up was a claim that Minnesota law allowed doctors to withold care from babies born alive after attempted abortions. Walz denied it. Vance kept pressing and insisted it was the case. What bugs me is that this ought to be fairly easily resolved. It's not really a matter of opinion. Either the law allows it, or does not allow it, or, possibly, it's so badly written that you can't tell. Even in that case, though, it ought to be possible to look at the law and point to a specific section to back up a claim. I wouldn't expect the candidates to be able to cite lawbooks on the spot, but it would be nice if post-debate fact checkers would do that, but I doubt they will.

Except, of course, for yours truly. Here is what a relevant statute says, and I think it's pretty definitive.

Subdivision 1.Recognition; care. An infant who is born alive shall be fully recognized as a human person, and accorded immediate protection under the law. All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken by the responsible medical personnel to care for the infant who is born alive.

It seems pretty straightforward to me. Vance was....we'll be generous....wrong.



It bugs me because, in general, a lot people act like somehow this is a matter of opinion. Vance says one thing. Walz says another. Ok, fine. What do the law books say? Sometimes, it's vague, but in this case, it doesn't seem like there are two possible interpretations, and I wish the media fact checkers would do that.

ETA: I looked at a few fact check articles. CNN's did cover the abortion law, and explain it.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/01/politics ... index.html

Summary: The law doesn't allow witholding of medical care to any baby that has any chance of survival. The previous law required doctors to attempt to perform life saving procedures even on babies who were known to have no chance of survival.

[stanky]

It might be possible to keep a zygote alive if conditions were perfect. It could live as a sponge-like creature in an aquarium in the nursery.

(Worth a shot, damnit.)

btw, me too; saw the debate; was impressed that both fellas were pretty smooth. i expected Vance to be more idiotic. He was made for the camera in a way. The polite nature of it was refreshing. I wonder if they colluded on that, pre-event? I found it quite pronounced, with them often agreeing on something.
Quite a test, being on a stage so huge, trying not to laugh or cough or say "um"; speaking in full sentences; minimal drooling; keeping track of the subject; looking ok...not everyone can do that. Walz occasionally would look shocked at what Vance was saying. Like an actor would.

I can't recall anything of significance discussed.

fluffy

[Meadmaker]

I can't recall anything of significance discussed.

I think that will be the general impression. I could say the same thing. And yet, there was quite a lot of things of great significance that were discussed. Economic plans. Donald Trump's unhinged personality. Overturning elections. Abortion. Guns. Climate change. Immigration.

And yet, we're all kind of ho hum and unimpressed. It's kind of disturbing in a way. No one said anything about eating cats, so there's really nothing to see here.

[arthwollipot]

There's one thing to see here.

Trump has a successor.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-03/ ... /104425740