reply on: What's So Bad About Trump? \ stacker news ~libertarian

335 sats \ 12 replies \ @0327ea5ed0 6 Jun freebie \ on: What's So Bad About Trump? libertarian

#1 - He is a convicted felon. #2 - He is responsible for overturning roe vs. wade, taking away women's freedoms. #3 - He added over $8 trillion to the national debt. #4 - He owes nearly $500 million for defamation against a women he sexually assaulted. #5 - He took classified / top secret documents and stored them insecurely and refused to give them back. #6 - He fomented an insurrection to try and hold on to power. #7 - He is actively attacking and making a mockery of our justice system.

I could go on, but I am sure I have a number of people raging mad by now.

179 sats \ 1 reply \ @JesseJames 6 Jun

#2 - He is responsible for overturning roe vs. wade, taking away women's freedoms. Not to nitpick here but the supreme court re-delegated that decision to the states (the way it should be from the start) , nothing was taken away... You still have options. You don't like what your state does, write the representative or move...

55 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 6 Jun

Some states like California have made abortions cheaper and easier to access with zero restrictions

65 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bell_curve 6 Jun

Many legal scholars have criticized Roe for being a poorly conceived decision. Plus judicial activism. Plus federalism.

Today in California a woman can abort a pregnancy anytime. No restrictions on partial birth abortions.

15 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford OP 6 Jun

Regardless of your moral position on abortion @Bell_curve is correct. Even legal scholars that support the right to abort have said this.

The solution to me is for each jurisdiction to decide this. This is not what I want but I think it is the only way in the current system. Which basically is what is happening. Now, we see conservatives seeking to ban it on a federal level.

Why? Because the incentives are for them to get money and votes. Roe being overturned removed a major issue that the red team has used for decades to get voters out and raise money.

When you pull your head out of the matrix you start to see that the incentives of politicians isn't to solve problems in a way that is most appealing to everyone. Its hard to believe but its true. They are incentivized to divide us. Pit us against one another. Its sick. Once they gain control they push even further. Then it blows back.

Few people understand that many European nations have far more restrictive abortion laws than many US states. Few people know that many nations we'd consider more liberal actually have more conservative laws in many areas. But we Americans never let ignorance get in the way of stating our positions.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 6 Jun

13 week limitation in Europe

And it’s been this way for 100 years in Europe

No country debates abortion except for USA.

Regarding federal abortion policy, Democrats never pushed to nationalize abortion rights after Roe because they knew they didn’t have the votes

There is no popular support for a federal ban or restriction either

23 sats \ 1 reply \ @jgbtc 7 Jun

I wasn't going to vote but now I'm voting for Trump after this total sham conviction.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 7 Jun

Thanks for sharing

18 sats \ 1 reply \ @doubleplusgood23 7 Jun

I don't consider myself a "trump guy" but will be voting for him in 2024, why these reasons don't ring to me for are as follows:

I really don't agree with the process they got the felony conviction. The actual charges are misdemeanors that were then raised to felonies based on a felony they didn't actually prove.
Regardless of my opinion on abortion (I'm a Christian and have heard very enthusiastic explanations on why it's murder but I'm still mixed), passing the decision to the States to decide is perfectly fine with me. I also believe legislating from the bench was a bad strategy and - as stated above - plenty of legal scholars don't find Roe particularly well argued. The Democrats should've passed actual abortion legislation if they feel it should be the law of the land. Y'Know, like how you're supposed to do it.
Not really anything to disagree with here but I don't think he ever branded himself as a "small spender".
I'm also not convinced by this civil case that took place. We're talking about an event that was so old they changed laws to fit the case.
I just don't find this super worrying? He was in charge of a lot more for four years, I get data hygiene is important but I'm not seeing how this is the end of the world. I don't care that Biden did it either.
I don't buy the media's spin on the event after the "fiery but mostly peaceful" protests they ran interference for during 2020.
I'm not sure I know an intelligent adult right or left who has an unwavering faith in our justice system. It deserves some respect and revered in some sense, sure, but anyone who's interacted with it knows how corrupt and sour it is.