No where did I say we shouldn’t be working towards better.

No, but you immediately dismissed my S and A tier objectives as fantasy and objectives that shouldn’t even be talked about. If you dismiss an objective as fantasy you aren’t going to work towards it. If I tell myself it is impossible for me to run a sub-3 hour marathon, then I am not going to put the effort in to train for it and I will certainly never achieve it, but if I believe it is possible, I will work towards it, and even though I’ll probably never achieve it, I might get close and be much happier with the results than never having tried.

Laws have to reflect reality though and not an ideal that can either never be achieved

This is the same flawed logic that I pointed out is being used in the gun violence “debate”. A country with no gun violence is an unachievable ideal that doesn’t reflect reality, so we shouldn’t try to restrict who has access to guns. You don’t see the parallel flawed logic there?

I was trying to find a common platitude that people on opposite sides of this issue could work towards, albiet for very different reasons.

1. Do we agree that unwanted pregnancies are an undesirable thing?

2. Do we agree that abortions are a direct result of #1?

3. Do we agree that abortions are an undesirable thing? If not from a moral stance, then at least in the way having an appendectomy is an undesirable thing?

If we agree on these things, then can we agree to work towards things that achieve the desired end state where abortion is legal but completely un-utilized?

I would have the exact same objective for homicide. I would love to have a country where homicide is legal but there are no homicides. Obviously that sounds ridiculous and completely unrealistic. What is the point? The point is that I want a country where nobody is murdered because nobody wants to murder anyone, not because they are afraid of legal punishment. Legal deterrence only goes so far. I am 100% confident I could murder someone and face no legal consequences, so what effect does the law have on my decision making?

This is what I have come to realize with abortion: I hate abortion, but what does changing the law really change? I don’t want mothers who only birth their babies because they are afraid of going to jail. I want mothers who love their children, both before and after birth. I don’t want women to find themselves in incredibly difficult situations with an unwanted pregnancy. But changing the law isn’t going to change anyone’s heart, and that is ultimately what I care about.

I know what a tier list is, but I’m stuck on mobile right now and it was hard to find an editor to edit the tier elements with. The new format is better.

So basically you are saying that abortions are a fact of life…

Glad to know that a country where women don’t have unwanted pregnancies is a pure fantasy, so it isn’t an objective that anyone should work towards.

• Let’s not try to reduce the maternal mortality rate so that women don’t have to make the horrible choice between living and having an abortion

• Let’s not have safe, effective, and available contraception so that women don’t get pregnant on accident

• Let’s not try to eliminate rape so that women aren’t forcibly impregnated

No, a country with legal abortions that are unwanted isn’t achievable so we shouldn’t try to work towards it. Just like we will never eliminate gun violence, so why bother even trying to work towards it…

I feel like this is just as much of a meme as this post: https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/f7799a12-d1a3-4cc3-b682-8c2943043baa.jpeg

Which is a screenshot of an old news story.

Or this post: https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/1ef0fc84-eace-47f0-b928-7a1446e03b6c.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=256

Which is simply a screenshot of someones Twitter post.

So I’m pretty sure that isn’t why it is downvoted so much…

At least my content is original.

Ironically, a bolt-action hunting rifle which is legal in all 50 states would be a much better choice for an assassination attempt than “assault rifles” like an AR-15 or the even less accurate AK-47. So not only can they not shoot, they apparently don’t know anything about rifles either.

If you note, I put “businessman” in quotes for both of them because it isn’t the correct term for either of them. It isn’t the correct term for Taylor because it is the wrong pronoun, and it isn’t the correct term for Trump because he seems incapable of running a successful business. It was an intentional construct for ironic parallelism, not an oversight.

If they don’t have to worry about guns, then why do they have guns drawn?

Reagan was at least governor of California prior to running for president.

The argument that “you shouldn’t vote for someone just because your favorite celebrity endorses them” seemed like a much more credible argument before the 2016 election when the winning candidate essentially won by literally being a celebrity.

Prior to 2016, Trump was probably best known for being the host of a reality TV show, and being a “businessman”. Taylor Swift is definitely better known, and you could also make a solid argument that she is a better “businessman” as well.

There is a very logical progression of basic human needs. Without oxygen, a human will die in less than an hour. We need clean breathable air. Without water, a human a will die in less than a month. We need clean drinkable water. Without food a human will die in less than a year. Shelter is trickier because people can die of exposure and hypothermia in a matter of hours, but may be able to survive without it.

• Air for profit
• Water for profit <- This exists
• Food for profit <- We are here
• Shelter for profit

The whole purpose of separation of powers into executive, legislative, and judicial branches is to prevent consolidation of power. It is supposed to be like the 3-way standoff from the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

I think the root problem here is that a justice shouldn’t be allowed to serve until after the president who nominated them is out of office, and if they would be otherwise eligible for another term, would no longer be permitted to run for the presidency while the justice is serving on the court. This would also cut-down on the issue of lifetime appointments by shortening their appointments by 4-8 years.

That and the President obviously shouldn’t have immunity from the law.

What happens with the vacancy on the court while we are waiting for the president to leave office? It gives the legislature plenty of time to argue about the appointment, which they will do anyways.

Not to take anything anyway from the Olympic athletes who are incredibly talented at their sport, but their sport doesn’t resemble the practical shooting of real guns.

There are actual competitons for that, such as the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC) world shoots. The U.S. is much better represented in these: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPSC_Handgun_World_Shoots

The ironic thing is that if the US government wanted people to stop using it because of the PRC, they should have just leaked some fake Snowden style documents saying that the NSA was using it. Everyone would drop it like a hot potato then.

I think I have a solution, hear me out: The penalty for missing a mandatory vote is you don’t get to vote.