I still think we can come together - but this not compromising, not admitting that the divide is killing us is just going to keep this going.

Indeed. The preaching unity while calling the other side names is not
going to cut it, either.

There are a lot of people on both sides now who think compromise is a sign
of weakness, and our way is the only way forward. In the long term, that
will just make the divide greater and bring the country down.


* SLMR 2.1a * Veni, Vidi, Visa. (I came, I saw, I charged it.)
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

I didn't vote left either. I went with one of the 3rd-party candidates. I know people say it's basically wasting your vote, but I felt like both

ptions

weren't that great. The 2-party system we have kinda sucks, and if we want it to change, the change has to start somewhere.

I did that also. Knew they wouldn't win, but I could not bring myself to
vote for a felon who also thought that holding a "losers rally" in DC on election certification day was a good idea, and I really could not bring
myself to vote for someone who'd spent the past 4 years looking completely overwhelmed as our VP.


* SLMR 2.1a * Do unto others BEFORE they do unto YOU.
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Indeed. The preaching unity while calling the other side names is not going to cut it, either.

You know how it works, both viewpoints take jabs until someone cries and digs in deeper...

There are a lot of people on both sides now who think compromise is a
sign of weakness, and our way is the only way forward. In the long
term, that will just make the divide greater and bring the country down.

I agree. While I'm happy for the change, and think we needed it badly, I also don't align with any one party - I think women should have the right to abortion, and think it was the wrong move to get rid of Wade... but in the current atmosphere, most folks won't find out where we could align because of the right/left lunacy...



|07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
|08.........

The 2-party system we have kinda sucks, and if we wanta
to change, the change has to start somewhere.

I did that also. Knew they wouldn't win, but I could not bring myself to vote for a felon who also thought that holding a "losers rally" in DC on election certification day was a good idea, and I really could not bring myself to vote for someone who'd spent the past 4 years looking
completely overwhelmed as our VP.

I also think the 2 party system is antiquated TODAY. Don't know how that changes, as people have been trying for decades but think we'd be better with more options available...



|07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
|08.........

I did that also. Knew they wouldn't win, but I could not bring myself to
vote for a felon who also thought that holding a "losers rally" in DC on election certification day was a good idea, and I really could not bring myself to vote for someone who'd spent the past 4 years looking completely overwhelmed as our VP.

I also think the 2 party system is antiquated TODAY. Don't know how that changes, as people have been trying for decades but think we'd be better with more options available...

I think it has to start at the state level. Most states have rules and
laws in place that make it very difficult for third party candidates to get financing and even get on the ballot. Since each state sets the rules as
to who gets on their ballots, we often have 3rd party candidates running
for President that are not on the ballot country-wide.


* SLMR 2.1a * How do they get the deer to cross at the signs?
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

I also think the 2 party system is antiquated TODAY. Don't know how that changes, as people have been trying for decades but think we'd be better more options available...

I think it has to start at the state level. Most states have rules and laws in place that make it very difficult for third party candidates to get financing and even get on the ballot. Since each state sets the
rules as to who gets on their ballots, we often have 3rd party
candidates running for President that are not on the ballot country-wide.

Great point - but daunting because that leaves decades before change. The people are supposed to be in control, but this experiment is so far down the road that things won't change in OUR lifetimes...

I think thats part of the reason the country voted for 'change' again this term - kinda funny that in 4 short years the 'change' was the same thing most of the country didn't want in 2016.



|07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
|08.........

I think it has to start at the state level. Most states have rules and laws in place that make it very difficult for third party candidates to get financing and even get on the ballot. Since each state sets the rules as to who gets on their ballots, we often have 3rd party candidates running for President that are not on the ballot country-wide.

Great point - but daunting because that leaves decades before change. The people are supposed to be in control, but this experiment is so far down the road that things won't change in OUR lifetimes...

"The people" in each state probably did, at some point, go along with
whatever finance or ballot rules were made, not realizing they might one
day regret it.


* SLMR 2.1a * */ --Tribble with a lightsaber
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Re: The divide
By: paulie420 to Dumas Walker on Sat Feb 15 2025 12:28 pm

I agree. While I'm happy for the change, and think we needed it badly, I also don't align with any one party - I think women should have the right to abortion, and think it was the wrong move to get rid of Wade... but in the current atmosphere, most folks won't find out where we could align because of the right/left lunacy...

Not About Morality or "Killing" a Baby:The decision in Roe v. Wade was not about determining the morality of abortion or whether it was a right to "kill" an unborn child. Instead, the case focused on the constitutional right to privacy and the right of a woman to make decisions regarding her own body, particularly in a medical context. The ruling did not address the moral debates surrounding abortion, but instead framed the issue as one of constitutional rights and personal autonomy.The Court’ s focus was on protecting individual freedoms from excessive government interference, recognizing that decisions about pregnancy involve private, personal matters that should not be dictated by the government. The Court did not make a ruling on when life begins or the moral value of the fetus, but instead emphasized the right of women to make decisions without undue restrictions.Later Developments:Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), which returned the issue of abortion to state legislatures. The Court ruled that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, thus overturning Roe v. Wade and allowing states to regulate or ban

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), it did not "take away" a right, but rather returned the authority to regulate abortion to the individual states, effectively ending the federal protection that had been established by Roe. This decision returned the issue of abortion to the political process, allowing each state to decide how to handle abortion laws according to the will of its voters and elected officials.Here’ s the key distinction:The Overturning of Roe v. Wade:The Court’ s decision in Dobbs did not rule out the possibility of abortion, but instead stated that the right to an abortion is not a constitutional right protected by the federal government. In other words, the federal Constitution does not grant or protect a right to abortion, which had been the basis of the Roe decision.How the Right Was "Given Back" to the States:Before Roe v. Wade, abortion laws were governed at the state level, and states had varying regulations regarding when and how abortions could occur. Roe had federalized the issue by asserting that a woman’ s right to an abortion was constitutionally protected under the right to privacy. Dobbs effectively reversed that by removing the federal constitutional protection for abortion, allowing individual states to make their own laws.

BrokenMind

Re: Re: The divide
By: paulie420 to Brokenmind on Tue Feb 18 2025 05:33 pm

I guess what I meant to say is that while I support Trump currently, I still > advocate for womens complete and full rights to an abortion if they choose. > don't care what we call it, so I'll just goto the extreme - I think if a wom > wants to kill her fetus she should have the right to, period.

"That's not a problem, and I completely understand your perspective. As a Christian, I personally believe that all life is precious, and based on the Word of God, I don't support abortion. But that's just my belief, a
don't think it's my place to push my faith onto others. How I vote is a personal decision for me. If someone asks me why I don't believe in abo
I'm happy to share my reasoning and refer them to Scripture. Ultimately
role is to love others without compromising my beliefs, and I strive to treat everyone with respect, even if they don't share my views. I never look down on anyone, because I know I'm no better than anyone else. I can't boast about how much I love God; I can only boast about His love. I'm especially grat
because I was adopted, and I'm so thankful my mom chose life for me

BrokenMind
---
­ Synchronet ­ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)

"That's not a problem, and I completely understand your perspective. As a Christian, I personally believe that all life is precious, and based on the Word of God, I don't support abortion.

So I actually [almost] agree with you. *I* am a Christian, and I believe life is precious. If a partner of mine gets pregnant we would be having a baby - unless she chose another route, which wouldn't happen because I make sure before getting there.

But I do think women should have the ultimate choice, even over my values and morals.



|07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
|08.........

Re: Re: The divide
By: paulie420 to brokenmind on Thu Feb 20 2025 07:23 pm

But I do think women should have the ultimate choice, even over my values and morals.

I think the issue is that they are trying to portray the subject as a women rights issue while society makes it not a women rights issue.

I don't know over there, but around here if you get a woman pregnant and then don't want to deal with the baby you get both a whole lot of social backslash, not to mention legal consequences. It is not like the baby is a female issue. If it was socially and legally acceptable to dump a pregnant woman then I would be closer to agree it is a woman rights issue.

The moral angle of the matter is pretty much non solvable right now because pro-abortion groups argue that an unborn child is not an entity with human qualities enough to warrant rights. Meanwhile anti-abortion groups think abortion is about the same as stabbing a baby. I am personally close to the idea that unborn children aren't entities with full rights but then I am aware you cannot tell people this is a subject they must keep their noses away from. Imagine if murdering homeless people was in the political plan of some group and that group told you to stay away from the issue because it is none of your business. For anti-abortists, that is the situation when they are told they cannot interfere when a mother murders their unborn baby.

That said, babies usually grow into becoming motherfuckers, so I say let the abortion spree begin.


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

But I do think women should have the ultimate choice, even over my valu and morals.

I don't know over there, but around here if you get a woman pregnant and then don't want to deal with the baby you get both a whole lot of social backslash, not to mention legal consequences.

The moral angle of the matter is pretty much non solvable right now because pro-abortion groups argue that an unborn child is not an entity with human qualities enough to warrant rights.

That said, babies usually grow into becoming motherfuckers, so I say let the abortion spree begin.

Same over here; it is socially unacceptable to leave a woman to fend for herself during a pregnancy - not that it doesn't happen often, but of course its looked down upon.

The morality; thats why I always goto the extreme and say, I don't care what you call it - if I have to support a woman KILLING her unborn child, then fine... I don't think thats what it IS, but if it is I support her choice over all.

If I had to write the rules, I'd say 1st trimester abortions should be available to any woman who wants one - and some very limited options for health of baby/mom after...

On thing is that the man has no choice. If the woman chooses to have a baby, he can't force an abortion and if the woman chooses abortion, he can't force her to birth his child... hopefully if you've gotten a woman pregnant, you will have those choices, but its ultimately the womans...

All this to say again; I support a womans right to abortions, and I do fall a bit on the right for other matters - and I can compromise and change my mind when a differing opinion wins me over.



|07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
|08.........

Re: Re: The divide
By: paulie420 to Arelor on Sun Mar 02 2025 05:55 pm

On thing is that the man has no choice. If the woman chooses to have a baby,

Well, this is what I was talking about.

The moment you have a sociolegal structure that can force you to pass a sustainment pension to a kid you didn't give birth to, that baby is your problem, therefore abortion matters in their current form are NOT a woman rights issue.

And furthermore, as long as a sociolegal structure exists so that control over something you are held responsible for (ie. the baby) is granted to a third party (ie. the woman), then the smart play is not to play such a fixed game, at all.

This issue gets compounded because nowadays there is this tendency for governments to take over education. So if you get laid with a gal you have a non trivial risk of having a child you will be paying for but who will be educated and controlled what the government and in the case of any marriage disagreement you will lose any control off.

Then they wonder why natality is going down the drain.

I guess the obvious answer is "Well, Arelor, then do us a favor and don't reproduce" at which point I will just say the people reproducing nowadays are the sort of people who aren't going to pay your pensions or improve the society in the least. So good luck defending the status quo.


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

I guess the obvious answer is "Well, Arelor, then do us a favor and don't reproduce" at which point I will just say the people reproducing
nowadays are the sort of people who aren't going to pay your pensions or improve the society in the least. So good luck defending the status quo.

Yea - you just stop f00king. Theres the answer.



|07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
|08.........

Re: Re: The divide
By: paulie420 to Arelor on Mon Mar 03 2025 09:55 pm

Yea - you just stop f00king. Theres the answer.

Ceasing to perform biological functions works for me because I don't give a damn. I don't think it will be sustainable for a big number of people in the long run, though.


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL