MovieChat Forums > Skavau > Replies
Skavau's Replies
I feel like I've seen "Biden about to start WW3" every month on here for the last year or so.
He's got less than 24 hours to do it.
>But muh fact checker said it's not true.
Going to actually address its arguments and sources?
>That fact checker confirms 100% that it is true, otherwise there wouldn't be a fact checker for it.
What the actual fuck is this brainrot logic? "Your rejection of my claims means it is true"
https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/california-reproductive-health-bill-does-not-legalize-infanticide-idUSL1N37Z2H5/
"BILL DOES NOT DECRIMINALIZE INFANTICIDE
Law professors on reproductive health consulted by Reuters said the bill does not decriminalize infanticide and the amendment sought to limit misinterpretation of its language.
“This language in no way protects someone who kills a 28-day-old baby,” Cary Franklin, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law (here), said.
“It protects people whose fetuses die in utero and people who take actions or fail to take actions while pregnant that may result in death shortly after delivery.”
“The bill states that California will not use its law enforcement and judicial resources to prosecute pregnant women and other pregnant people for the outcomes of their pregnancies,” Franklin said, whether miscarriage, stillbirth, abortion, or perinatal death due to causes in utero.
Two cases of women in California being charged for murder after experiencing stillbirths prior to the bill were covered by the Los Angeles Times (here), (here).
Mary Ziegler, a Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law (here) said that when it was first introduced, “there was some concern that that language was vague and it could be interpreted to immunize pregnant people or women from criminal penalties during the perinatal period.”
The California Catholic Conference, for example, initially described the proposed legislation as an “infanticide bill” (here) but after the clarifications made in the amendments said it would “remain neutral on the bill” (here)."
Explain away the argument from here please.
>Did you forget about the 200+ Republicans that recently endorsed Scamala?
Can I see this number? And out of how many Republicans is this?
>Democrats don’t need to endorse other Democrats that are already in disguise posing as Republicans which is why it’s the other way around (fake Republicans endorsing Democrats).
Democrats don't endorse Republicans in the first place. What the hell are you on about? My point was that Democrats typically endorse Democrats. Most Republican politicians even if they don't like Trump are also endorsing Trump. There's some never-trumpers, but most of them are just not endorsing Trump as opposed to endorsing the Democrats.
No.
I'll go and post wherever I like.
You demonstrate again how you have zero interest in any kind of debate here. Jussie Smollett vibes. This is just a cutesy tik-tok kid that contains kids of a relatively wide age-range. It's weak as hell.
That's not what I asked you.
>Hillary and Obama = same policies, same plans, same agenda and same swamp.
They're both Democrats. Typically Democrat politicians endorse Democrat politicians for office.
>... And many of the Republicans since they are of the same UniPartY swamp.
What democrats have endorsed republicans?
>And years later, Obama parachutes into the White House from behind the scenes for a private meeting with the sitting President to whisper in his ear to abandon reelection; a remarkable event never before occurring in the history of the office which happens to closely mirror the theoretical power he fantasized about in the Colbert interview long before.
This seems to be some mythical meeting that you've concocted in your head. Obama is a long and old friend of Joe Biden and very likely privately urged him to stand down. But most of the Democrat establishment was telling Joe Biden to stand down in the end, either publicly or privately.
Not sure what this has to do with the claim that Obama, in a November 2020 interview with a comedian genuinely wanted to try a third term by proxy.
> Which is why those who disagree with you politically do not automatically accept your interpretation (or that of the OP) about the meaning of these quotes from former Presidents. i.e., the only point I was originally making. I sense we’re just going to go round and round on what really is an uncontroversial point in my OP which I’m starting to perceive may be your only goal here
The context behind both comments by Trump and Obama, and the characters of each, could not be any more different.
>He did, by endorsing Hillary. Now he wants a 4th term by endorsing Scamala.
Hillary isn't Obama. And you speak as if it's some big conspiracy that Democrat politicians endorse Democrats.
>Yes, and Pence is member of the same swamp as Hillary, Obama and Biden (the UniPartY).
No reason to believe this nonsense about "muh uniparty" you claim really.
>Why wouldn't he leave normally, he wasn't the nominee, Hillary was and she contested it enough to stage a soft coup using the Russia collusion hoax.
A "soft coup" that would have, at best, resulted in President Pence?
Why did he do nothing to ensure he had a third term in secret like he supposedly seriously called for?
>Obama was being serious when he said that, only an imbecile would think he was only kidding especially since he has said it in the past.
Based on what? He's literally being interviewed by a satirist and he is half-grinning.
>He may not be literally using the earpiece method but he has certainly been puppeteering Biden and running as a 3rd term shadow president.
Provide evidence please.
He wasn't being serious, and it was clearly a joke.
>I can just as easily say that I have no idea how you watch that Trump clip and see his comment as anything more than a tongue-and-cheek boast about how he should apparently not left office because the border patrol thinks him the only president capable of controlling the border.
Probably because he actually did try to cling onto office at the time.
I have no idea how you watch that clip and assume Obama was being even slightly serious.
>Obama wasn’t on a comedy show when he said it. It was a traditional media interview taped in a professional setting with somber lighting meant to portray the seriousness of the exchange.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCfpxx0NH9I
What the hell are you on about?
>My gripe is with OP for giving us his impression of the Trump quote and trying to suggest his take is credible by sourcing it to a media hyperlink behind a paywall.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/03/trump-election-pennsylvania-rally
Not paywalled. And video.
>I don’t remember Obama’s delivery coming across as a joke.
You think Obama went on a comedy show to seriously suggest that he should've organised a stand-in with an earpiece that he would dictate to without anyone knowing?
> As I said, context is important to interpretation. Just as you reject the meaning of my quotation of Obama on a third-term-by-puppet, I do not accept OP’s interpretation (that I’m getting by hearsay) of Trump’s quote.
Trump is also referring to an election where he seriously and repeatedly questioned the results and outcome of. Where he actively tried to prevent leaving office via lawfare. Obama at no point questioned the 2016 results, and left office normally.