I actually did read em all. And in spirit, I do agree with a lesser evil argument in specific circumstances. What eventually irks me like the pea pod in the princesses’ bed is that when it comes down to it, it’s often voting for the puppy killer. That churns my stomach literally not figuratively in the ballot booth. I stand there going, goddammit can I back this person? I view voting as my signature. I do not view it impartially as others do. It’s very personal.
It’s fun to derail threads but your point is taken that we should start a thread of our own to debate the voting a lesser evil argument on its own. I might be up for that. I would like to hear others’ opinions on it as well because I see validity on both sides, or many sides because it’s not just two.
3 Likes
Are the owners of Hobby Lobby, who are against “four specific drugs and devices [that] potentially terminate life”, also against the death penalty?
1 Like
Why would they be? This is about punishing dirty, dirty women for their dirty, dirty sins. It has nothing to do with revenge killing in the name of the State.
3 Likes
Clarence Thomas is not amused.
That sounds like a good plan. I’m trying to “like” your comments, but the system says I’ve passed the limit so I can’t dish 'em out anymore today. Lemme know when you’re up for it and I’ll head on over to the new thread or lemme know and I’ll make one and send you the link.
2 Likes
Sometimes there is no third choice on the ballot and so no clear FOR option (like e.g. the Pirate Party, even when they do not seem to have chance at the given time). That helps me rationalizing the choice as not voting FOR B but AGAINST A. I then do not have to live with endorsing B but with preventing A from holding office which would be even worse than B. Makes life easier by working around unproductive mental self-torture that can’t change anything anyway.
Exactly, This is not about religious liberty, it is about control.
5 Likes
FYI - here are some choice excerpts from the dissent penned by Ruth “Badass” Ginsberg:
2 Likes
Just elect a corporation as president of the United States and be done with it.
1 Like
This is the result of having a Supreme Court that’s 7/9 Catholic. Pointing this out is, of course, very rude. However, since they have abandoned the pretense of religious neutrality to enshrine the pope’s views into law, going so far as to invent a new constitutional principle out of whole cloth, I think it’s fair to ask if agnostics, atheists, and others will ever have their voices heard at the court. It’s also only fair to demand that at least two of the Catholic justices who foisted this travesty on us are fired and replaced with non-believers.
He may look like he’s laughing, but just gaze into those cold, dead eyes…
Yeah, because protestant sects are sooo incredibly pro-choice and pro-woman. Let’s not lay this solely at the feet of the “Papists” now. David Green is not a Catholic, but is a member of the Assemblies of God congregation, and is in fact a preacher in that denomination. It’s something of BS notion to blame the Catholic church, when it’s not just Catholics here.
I will also point out that the many Catholics dissent from official doctrine, and vote for pro-choice candidates.
And the break down wasn’t 7/9, it was 5/4, so there’s that. It has less to do with Catholicism and more to do with American conservatism.
1 Like
It seems to me that if corporations are people, and those people can intervene in the medical choices of their employees in ways like restricting access to birth control, they should be allowed to adopt the babies they are encouraging the creation of. It’s really the only logical conclusion here.
1 Like
Do we really want corporations raising kids… more than they already do, I mean.
I think that comes down to whether or not being an anti-natalist is recognized as either a protected class or as a religion. I believe the answer to that question right now is no. Whether it should be is another matter, but I don’t believe it is.
I doubt you’d find an insurance company that would exclude coverage for prenatal care. It’s a common thing. Unless you set up a private co-op type of insurance specifically to exclude particular classes of people from your insurance. I think co-ops are allowable under ACA, but you’d have to look it up.
Here’s a like to tuck away in your tunic.
Go ahead & make the opening salvo when ready. Can we agree to sacrifice no humor but maintain civility? I will try my damnedest.
Rules accepted! Shall we call it the “Why awjt is wrong” thread? 
Or would you prefer “On the merits and demerits of voting the lesser evil” thread or something?
Apparently, it is also no small thing to Hobby Lobby.
It’s not a matter of what I want, it’s a matter of their rights under the law! I mean, where in the adoption code does it say that only non-corporate persons can adopt? Really when you think about it, corporate persons should also be able to adopt even unborn personhoods (frozen IVF people aka embryos, for instance). Corporations can provide a stable environment, a proper upbringing that instills a good work-ethic, an education that focuses on the important things like economics, and of course they can provide overtime pay too. What “natural” parent can say that?
Of course, I’m only referring to “merged” corporate persons, when the merger has occurred between an S-Corp and a C-Corp. After all, it’s not Adam and Steve LLP.
2 Likes
