Cameroni

Paging Taylor Swift! Paging Taylor Swift! You better shake it off...shake it off.... Hahahahahaha...

So a bit like Kamala Harris then.

No, I understand that. However, if the courts had been inclined to weigh in on the abortion pill by mail issue they could have done so. Their refusal would indicate no great appetite for this. Especially after they were pilloried for the striking down of Roe vs Wade. Where do you get this stuff from, I claim that Trump's administration would refuse to obey a Supreme Court decision? What? Alito did not suggest Comstock is a valid approach, the plaintiffs had raised it so he explored the issue with all parties, that's not him saying Comstock is a valid approach. Why would Trump appoint an ideologue to the FDA? He doesn't even care about abortion. It's all pointless anyway: "The Comstock Act’s implications have been overblown by the pro-abortion side,” said Severino, who previously served in the Trump administration as a top official at the Department of Health and Human Services. Severino described to CNN a scenario in which misoprostol – the other drug used for medication abortion – would still be accessible to women seeking abortion in states where abortion is legal, since misoprostol also has non-abortion uses." If one pill becomes illegal, women in a state where abortion is illegal will use another drug, that also happens to have wide usage for other things. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/29/politics/comstock-act-alito-thomas-abortion/index.html

Thanks so you quoted that I did say it: "if a comprehensive case were to go before the Supreme court on restricting mail order pills for abortion they would not support it" There is no way Comstock will be enforced, there are already massive arguments against it applying to abortion pills anyway, no court would apply it to abortion pills. Why would the FDA embarass itself by going against its own decision, these are drug regulation people, they are not ideologues.

Dark roast is the way to go, good pot. Everything correct.

Like I said, if a comprehensive case were to go before the Supreme Court, their lack of inclination to grant standing here would indicate that they will not support restricting abortion pill availability by mail. And I certainly don't see Trump pushing for that. He supports IVF. It's not a key issue for him. To think the FDA would roll back its own approval is extremely unlikely. I don't think Trump can decide to start enforcing Comstock, it would be enforced in the courts, but that would never happen, it's a red herring. And who would push for this ban? You saw an anti-abortion group try to do so in the Supreme Court and they failed.

"Defendant, do you have a Biden/Harris bumper sticker on your truck?" "Yes, your honour". "This court finds you guilty as charged" "Long like Ukrai......" "Goodbye, Mr Routh"....

It was the Supreme Court that halted efforts to restrict mail order abortion pills. "The US Supreme Court has unanimously rejected an effort to restrict access to the abortion pill mifepristone." https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2qq1wqw3w2o Even where abortion is illegal women can procure these killer pills via mail and have abortions anyway. Given the above Supreme Court decision is it clear that if a comprehensive case were to go before the Supreme court on restricting mail order pills for abortion they would not support it. Comstock is a red herring, in any event it would not be Trump who would decide, it would be plaintiffs and judges. I was talking about the all encompassing abortion prevention effort which project 2025 envisages, Trump could never pass an abortion law at the federal level of that kind unless he has Congrees and Senate in the pocket, which is unlikely.

Here you go. Reading these nutjobs's ideas makes you terrified to think what will happen if Harris gets elected. She'll have to placate these nuts. https://www.thenation.com/article/society/kamala-harris-public-health-agenda/

Project 2025 requires making abortion pills illegal, which the Supreme Court has already vetoed, their extreme abortion position is nothing like Trump's actual abortion policy. Trump couldn't even implement their abortion ideas if he wanted to, unless the Reps win Senate and Congress. Harris knows this very well.

One of the first acts of Joe Biden was to make face masks mandatory, look it up. Trump never mandated any lockdown, the stay at home orders were made at state, city and county level. Only a handful of states did it. However, if Harris would get in, she would be far more extreme with masks and lockdowns than Trump. She is already being pressured by Covid nuts who claim Biden did too lilttle and Harris has to do more.

As opposed to Kamala Harris claiming Trump will prohibit abortion and implement Project 2025, you mean? Harris seems to do a good job of preying on the fears of women and progressives, that is for sure.

A social justice warrior flip flopper who has no qualms to throw all her social justice principles overboard if she thinks it will get her votes.

I do believe fear is at the root of the extreme polices Harris and her supporters enacted during the pandemic. A hysteric and primal fear.

If Kamala Harris becomes president she would enact the most extreme pro Abortion laws for sure. Worse still, though, would be her support to continue the war in Ukraine. The US needs to avoid a hot war with Russia, which is dangerously close.

No it is a fictional construct, he did not "make" these images, even if the law deems he made them by virtue of downloading them. That is clearly a nonsense. Just a construct to ensure the law can convict.

The law deems him as having downloaded them, and indeed having "made" them therefore. But clearly that is a fictional construct. His life was ruined anyway so seems like sufficient punishment .

Yah some of the pics were of younger kids, but the law deeming that he "made" these pictures because he downloaded them is obviously a nonsense. He downloaded something he should not have, but the sentence here is sufficient for effectively dowloading something prohibited. That is all that happened.

We were, but I think you are on the right track that there is no evidence the perp here is a paedophile, there is a world of difference between committing paedophilia and looking at pics of 14 to 16 year olds.. In any event the lenient sentence reflects this.

Well, he is right, we have a member on here who got vaccinated and got covid. And the pandemic did not stop due to vaccines.

Well said.

Oh I see, apologies, that is different. I thought you were saying child porn causes pedophilia, you got it the right way round, pedophilia causes child porn. I agree with that.

What I do not get is why they would even look at child porn. However, any causal link between pornography and crime is a myth. Serial killers like to watch porn. So many postulated a linke between serial killing and porn. In reality however 93 percent of adults watch porn, and the vast majority do not become serial killers or paedophiles. People who are like that are already predisposed. Of course a pedophile would enjoy child porn. Most normal people would not and could watch child porn for hours and would never touch a child. Because it does nothing for them.

There is no such link of course.

I was not the one who was saying talking about your convictions makes you an idiot, that was one of your guys. I was just pointing out that Kamala Harris is doing exactly the same.