It's all he ever does. I pretty much stopped taking him seriously when covid happened.
Trump ordered to pay $350 million for fraudulent business practices in New York
- Thread starter Piscian
- Start date
But what laws would make abortion legal at X point but not at Y point?
Or by actual laws. That's what rights are.
Banker involved in big loans to Trump's company testifies for his defense in civil fraud trial
A Deutsche Bank executive says the bank followed its own guidelines when deciding to lend Donald Trump’s company hundreds of millions of dollars.
apnews.com
You don't seriously talk to anyone that doesn't agree with you. You won't talk to like any European country because they've pretty much done everything with regards to covid that I said. Funny how that happened...
Oh I don't need the article. You should send it to thereason or alternatively you form an opinion and articulate it using facts and references instead of just spamming links.But what laws would make abortion legal at X point but not at Y point?
Or by actual laws. That's what rights are.
Banker involved in big loans to Trump's company testifies for his defense in civil fraud trial
A Deutsche Bank executive says the bank followed its own guidelines when deciding to lend Donald Trump’s company hundreds of millions of dollars.
You don't seriously talk to anyone that doesn't agree with you. You won't talk to like any European country because they've pretty much done everything with regards to covid that I said. Funny how that happened...
Those are the facts...
You guys actually can't debunk anything that the editorial said and then when presented with the facts, you ignore them. Why do you even wanna discuss anything if you don't ever change your stance on anything? Just to have people agree with you?
"Let me tell you something doctors don't understand - trust me, I'm a doctor"
I am minded of the infuriating adverts on YouTube (all by this Baltic-based company) which have a load of stock images and a voiceover, and no matter what they're selling, it's always the same narrative. Plucky, amazing maverick inventor has created X, which uses [insert fake science here] to deliver amazing results. The big industry players don't want you to know this, they tried to bribe the inventor to bury it or buy it off him, but he was too ethical. Yours for just £59.99.
Obviously, the entire narrative is a lie. It's designed partly towards conspiracist mindset, playing on their suspicions of big business / government. The maverick underdog fighting the greedy or uncaring, sclerotic system. There's also the sort of ego massage of someone thinking they know something special and a bit secret, that puts them up on the rest of the lumpen sheeple out there. The fake science is a key element, because everyone likes to believe they are rational and as science is currently the most generally trusted source of societal knowledge. It exists in a million forms. It's common in social media, where outlets aggressively give extensive space to "experts" pushing questionable and unconventional science, their qualifications rammed to the fore in an attempt to overwhelm skepticism. And then all the audience head out there thinking they've been armed with special knowledge, that means they are special, and have somehow got one over society. But they're actually just taking dewormer that won't do a damn to help cure their respiratory disease.
Don't forget how the plucky inventor got kicked out of Harvard for their fantastic new invention, because those dang elites just won't allow anything to shake up the status quo.
Yes, that's definitely in a few of them. Despite being completely nonsensical because one of the major income streams for universities is getting the intellectual fruits of their staff and students to market. (And at least the inventors actually get a cut of the sales, which is better than a corporate wage slave gets.)
So in other words: all you. You really love deflecting, projecting, and moving the goal post like usual. Also, I don't know, nor care, where you're getting the European thing from. You're way off the mark there, and relying on something I'd never once stated nor implied, nor acted out. You have fun with the copium juice and sucking up and making excuses for your false savior like usual.
Last edited:
That's exactly what Roe v. Wade did. We're literally talking about an example of that right now.
Uh-huh, and the law allowed access to abortion before Roe was overturned, and not afterwards.
New York appeals judge denies Trump bid to pay $100m of $454m judgment
Ex-president’s lawyers had asked court to halt collection of rest of amount plus ban on securing new loans from New York banks
www.theguardian.com
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,594
- 3,109
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Weird how a self proclaimed billionaire who stated under oath that he has more than $450 million liquid assets on hand can't find the money to pay his legal judgement without needing loans.New York appeals judge denies Trump bid to pay $100m of $454m judgment
Ex-president’s lawyers had asked court to halt collection of rest of amount plus ban on securing new loans from New York banks
View attachment 10748
It's ok though, I'm sure every bank in the country is lining up to get defrauded to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars because you know there's no way in hell he's ever paying that money back.
I don't think you know what that term means.
Roe wasn't a new law (that allowed abortion), it was a decision of what a current law could do, it allowed abortion based on another law that doesn't pertain to abortions. Hence why it got overturned.
There was no law that allowed for abortion. You can argue that another, more apt constitutional amendment could pertain to abortion but that's not what was argued in Roe.
Just to clarify here, Trump actually claimed he had over $400 million, so he might genuinely be a few tens of millions short. We shouldn't leap to assumptions that Trump lied
.
This is an irrelevant truism. It was a ruling. Rulings have legal weight.
For thirty years, that's exactly what the Constitutional right to privacy did.
In a pretty basic and fundamental sense, you don't seem to grasp what court rulings actually are. The ruling determines the official interpretation of the law. So until Roe was overturned, the law unequivocally, officially and legally, did cover abortion. That's not under debate.
Allegedly. Truth of the matter is that it got overturned because some Christian zealots on the courts wanted it to, not because some expert legal mind with only the best intentions found a flaw that the rest of the world overlooked for decades.
It was overturned for political reasons and not for legal ones.
A ruling and a law are 2 different things.
And for 30 years, the Roe decision didn't make legal sense. If the right to privacy did unequivocally and legally cover abortion, Roe wouldn't have been overturned. Explain how right to privacy with words and basic logic extends to some abortions but not all abortions. Also, if you want right to privacy to allow for abortions, then it would extend to literally any other medical procedure also being allowed. Hence, why the Roe decision was a blatant instance of court overreach.
Again, as I said to Silvanus:
Explain how right to privacy with words and basic logic extends to some abortions but not all abortions. Also, if you want right to privacy to allow for abortions, then it would extend to literally any other medical procedure also being allowed.
And goal post moved...