HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Pantagruel » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »

Pantagruel

Profile Information

Member since: Thu Dec 1, 2016, 04:57 PM
Number of posts: 2,332

Journal Archives

Upon learning TFG was illegally in possession

of the TS docs, shouldn't the CIA/FBI have put him under full surveillance to protect our national security? Seems to me, not watching him would be a severe dereliction of duty?

Trump clearly compromises U.S.national security

yet there's few GOP politicians rushing to disown him.Remember when the GOP touted their patriotism?

But her e-mails!

The first FIFTEEN boxes of docs

recovered from MAL themselves constitute a crime. Start the indictments there.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071

Why only Mar a Lago ?

Wouldn't you execute multiple search warrants on any suspect with multiple residences? Must have been specific targets based on specific intel?
As Swalwell pointed out, Trump could simply show us the warrant.

Defending the IRS expansion

will now be critical. Make sure every voter knows why we need another 87,000 tax auditors to collect legitimately owed taxes.

"Today, the “tax gap”—the difference between taxes that are owed and collected—totals around $600 billion annually and will mean approximately $7 trillion of lost tax revenue over the next decade.
Sep 7, 2021"

Good guys with guns

seem to have little effect. Imagine Uvalde if no one had an assault weapon.

Someone should point out

the vast, vast majority of indictments against government officials since Reagan target GOP politicians and appointees. Voters need to be made aware of the corrupt nature of the GOP.

We need an army

of sincere, motivated young women of child bearing age canvassing potential swing voters this fall. Explanations of how they're being relegated to 2nd class citizenry by the GOP would be very effective.
Recruit and train them ASAP.

Concept of choice

This concise, unattributed (sorry), rationale deserves a daily airing and promulgation:

"The concept of CHOICE:

"Reasonable people can disagree about when a zygote becomes a "human life" -- that's a philosophical question. However, regardless of whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her body autonomy for another, innocent or not.

"Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), McFall v. Shimp (1978), and of course Roe v. Wade (1973). Consider a scenario where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe aplastic anemia; no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you did not want to donate your marrow to save the child, for whatever reason, the state cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent. It doesn't matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the rationale for refusing is flimsy and arbitrary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, or if the child is a genius or a saint or anything else -- the decision to donate must be voluntary to be constitutional. This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or how many lives they would save.

"That's the law.

"Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life -- it must be offered voluntarily. By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally just, and refusing is morally wrong. That is a defensible philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees. But legally, it must be the woman's choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may choose to carry the baby to term. She may choose not to. Either decision could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But it must be her choice, and protecting the right of body autonomy means the law is on her side.

"Supporting that precedent is what being pro-choice means."

Another small win

for prosecutors:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/real-estate-firm-must-comply-162142681.html
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »