Right to Life

New Dolgaria wrote:

But in the original dilemma, didn't you say that Scenario 1 resulted in less abortions overall?

I kind of assumed the conversation had moved to the practical, my bad :P

I do not think that scenario would happen IRL or with those numbers, but it is a fun thought experiment.

Horatius Cocles wrote:

Meanwhile, Texas has just passed a restrictive voting bill, even though this is already the hardest state in the country to vote in. We have abysmally low turnout in this state as it is. Remember though, this is all for "election security" and "ballot integrity." The Texas Gop took Trump's baseless voter fraud allegations seriously and the fact that the state GOP is led by a Tea Party conservative doesn't bode well. Amid all the other pieces of legislation that could have been debated at Austin, this junk was chosen as our governor's highest priority. Not the “I am Vanessa Guillén Act” or the “George Floyd Act” got traction in Austin but this restrictive bill was passed no problem. Living in Harris County, a top target for state Republicans, we will now have to undo the very things that got us higher turnout in 2020. No more drive through voting, limited to no ballot boxes, crackdowns on mail in voting, etc. It’s a great way to ensure Republican dominance for another decade (did I mention they also control the redistricting process as well?)

I'm currently looking to find a relatively neutral summary of the bill beyond the text itself, which provisions do you have the biggest issues with? My take from some older articles (I do not know know all of the amendments made since) is that it seems a mix of bureaucratic provisions that are largely stupid and negative and that I would oppose, though are not very immensely transformative (such as changing precinct zoning), changes that seem reasonable (Give your driver's license or other ID number on your absentee ballot, no blindly sending out ballots unless specifically requested), and ones that are a mix (protecting poll watchers, but seemingly clumsily/overzealously-which appears to now have been fixed by amendment.)

I definitely think at least the mail-in changes are in order. I'm strongly of the mind that elections ought to take place on Election Day, and that mail-in or early voting should not exist outside of cases of need (disability, etc.) The inclusion of some other parts such as the precinct zoning in particular (assuming that is still part of the bill), however, seem to be pretty good evidence that there's some level of partisan and/or corrupt motivation behind some Republicans pushing the bill, unless there's an argument for such changes that I'm just not aware of.

hello

Horatius Cocles wrote:

Meanwhile, Texas has just passed a restrictive voting bill, even though this is already the hardest state in the country to vote in. We have abysmally low turnout in this state as it is. Remember though, this is all for "election security" and "ballot integrity." The Texas Gop took Trump's baseless voter fraud allegations seriously and the fact that the state GOP is led by a Tea Party conservative doesn't bode well. Amid all the other pieces of legislation that could have been debated at Austin, this junk was chosen as our governor's highest priority. Not the “I am Vanessa Guillén Act” or the “George Floyd Act” got traction in Austin but this restrictive bill was passed no problem. Living in Harris County, a top target for state Republicans, we will now have to undo the very things that got us higher turnout in 2020. No more drive through voting, limited to no ballot boxes, crackdowns on mail in voting, etc. It’s a great way to ensure Republican dominance for another decade (did I mention they also control the redistricting process as well?)

They aren't "baseless". As I've said many times, he recieved many many more votes than Obama. He only won HALF the counties Obama won: that is what happened in Pennsylvania, for instance. An impossible number of votes came from one area turning it blue

He gained an immpossible number. I am sorry.

And making it so that you have to prove youre a citizen to vote isnt "voter suppression" LOL. They had to get a warrant to allow the observers (who must be there legally) in certain areas which were illegally denying observers' accessm. Then once they finally got in the building, the counters started putting cardboard over windows so the observers couldnt see in. Is this suspicious to you? Because it is definitely illegal. Eventually the observers were taken out with the crowd of democrats cheering because they KNOW fraud has occurred.

Let's be honest: the problems democrats have with this, along with Biden telling illegals to "surge" to the border, is obviously evidence of how Democrats secretly support (or certainly dont care about) voter fraud. It helps them.

^That is also why democrats sent over 70 lawyers to attempt to stop the audit, which I believe I have said. Nothing happened so there's nothing to worry about right? Oh, it's a "ridiculous" measure, my pre installed lib news app tells me.