• The divide

    From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to PAULIE420 on Sat Feb 15 09:41:00 2025
    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
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to NIGHTFOX on Sat Feb 15 09:51:00 2025
    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
  • From paulie420@VERT/BEERS20 to Dumas Walker on Sat Feb 15 12:28:00 2025
    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.........
  • From paulie420@VERT/BEERS20 to Dumas Walker on Sat Feb 15 12:31:00 2025
    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.........
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to PAULIE420 on Sun Feb 16 09:56:00 2025
    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
  • From paulie420@VERT/BEERS20 to Dumas Walker on Sun Feb 16 12:47:00 2025
    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.........
  • From Dumas Walker@VERT/CAPCITY2 to PAULIE420 on Mon Feb 17 08:44:00 2025
    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
  • From Brokenmind@VERT/TIABBS to paulie420 on Tue Feb 18 10:00:42 2025
    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

    ---
    ï¿­ Synchronet ï¿­ THe iNSANE AsYLuM - tiabbs.synchro.net
  • From paulie420@VERT/BEERS20 to Brokenmind on Tue Feb 18 17:33:00 2025
    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 allo

    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

    Understood, thanks for going over the legal intricacies; I do understand that it just put the right to make laws back to the states.

    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. I don't care what we call it, so I'll just goto the extreme - I think if a woman wants to kill her fetus she should have the right to, period.



    |07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
    |08.........
  • From brokenmind@VERT/SYNCNIX to paulie420 on Wed Feb 19 21:53:14 2025
    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
    ---
    þ Synchronet þ My Brand-New BBS (All the cool SysOps run STOCK!)
  • From paulie420@VERT/BEERS20 to brokenmind on Thu Feb 20 19:23:00 2025
    "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.........