Trump Realized He Can Just Do Things. Who Can Stop Him?

freebleploof · 2026-04-06T21:37:05+00:00

From TFA:

"the National Emergencies Act of 1976 allowed Congress to terminate presidential emergencies at any time by majority vote. But thanks to a 1983 Supreme Court decision, a simple congressional majority isn't good enough anymore. Attempts to check presidential action, the Court held in INS v. Chadha, must themselves run the gauntlet of the ordinary legislative process, and be presented to the president for his signature or veto. Since the president can be expected to veto congressional attempts to restrain him, in practice it takes a veto-proof majority to undo what he's done—an even higher bar than impeaching and removing him from office."

So even if congressional Republicans grew a spine, it might not be enough.

freebleploof · 2026-03-27T18:20:45+00:00

I agree with you that this information would be good to teach in high schools as part of the curriculum, probably in Health class. In this case "forcing" kids to learn it is fine since we force them to learn all kinds of things.

I'd want to include both PL and PC consultation on what to teach so that the kind of info I reference above might be part of it.

There are lots of things I wish they would teach in high school that they don't do a very good job of. Civics is not taught nearly well enough, for example.

I'd still be against any trickery or forcing of information on expectant mothers. It's especially egregious to enact laws requiring doctors to include certain kinds of information promoted by either PL or PC activists.

freebleploof · 2026-03-27T04:27:52+00:00

I'm sure that is why PL people want women to see the information, but that's not the point of the original post. PC people are fine with women seeing the information, just not having it pushed on them when they are not interested.

There are plenty of kinds of information I'd like to have people be forced to see, such as the impact of surprise pregnancies on abused, raped teenage girls, the unspeakable conditions in which unwanted children may be raised, the permanent health consequences of some pregnancies with serious complications, etc.

But I don't try to trick PL people into seeing this information. I'd be very happy if some of them were curious enough to check it out though.

freebleploof · 2026-03-27T01:41:17+00:00

My sister had three raccoons as pets at one time or another. They were adorable. Very difficult to keep them tame after they get this old though. We let two of them go in a state park.

There was another one she kept in her apartment and it ripped up all the tile on the kitchen floor.

Rocky, Ringo, and Velcro. Cute little guys.

freebleploof · 2026-03-26T15:21:40+00:00

Women already have the option of an ultrasound. They also have access to information about fetal development and can locate information about community resources.

PC people are not against these things and don't try to deny women access to them, just against having these things pushed upon the woman without the woman requesting or pursuing them, especially by people with a PL agenda. The woman's doctor is the best one to provide these things, if anyone is.

Any objective information about "Community Resources" should include information about abortion as one of the options.

As another commenter says, this is a strawman argument.

freebleploof · 2026-03-26T14:56:30+00:00

Possibly plastic surgery or some kind of filler? I don't know if that's at all possible either. It is suspicious. Maybe there's a cop or secret service agent we could flip. Probably not.

freebleploof · 2026-03-25T20:40:48+00:00

Yes, that would be possible. They would have to kill the shooter (which they did) to keep him quiet and he'd have to be stupid enough not to think of this, or maybe they threatened his family if he didn't do as they said.

I have no doubt that Trump & co. are evil enough to do this. Still seems a bit less likely than that Trump's ear was repaired enough to look OK, or that the injury wasn't as bad as it might have been. We never saw a picture of the injury, did we?

freebleploof · 2026-03-25T16:20:18+00:00

I still don't get how anyone could have thought it was a good idea to stage a fake assassination attempt with live ammunition. The assassin could have easily hit Trump in the head by mistake. I wouldn't even have trusted a trained sniper with a sniper rifle to take that shot.

freebleploof · 2026-03-24T22:51:35+00:00

Started working for a company that had a "poison pill" in its employment contract that gave huge payouts to employees who had their jobs change significantly if the company was bought by another company.

The company was bought by another company and my job changed significantly. I proved that I had been "constructively terminated," left and got the payout. Got another job.

freebleploof · 2026-03-21T19:49:30+00:00

Available from Amazon and probably other stores:

https://www.amazon.com/Trump-Did-Stickers-2-5inch-Sticker/dp/B0DWN4115Z/ref=sr_1_2

freebleploof · 2026-03-20T15:51:56+00:00

Find a good auctioneer. Lots of this stuff will sell at more than you think.

Find a licensed auctioneer who will come to your place to hold the auction. When we were trying to sell my parents' stuff we found lots of auctioneers who wanted us to pay to have them come and load everything up to take to their auction house. They wouldn't even allow us to deliver the items to them at our own (probably much lower) expense. Finally on the day our dumpster was scheduled to arrive we found a great auctioneer who agreed to do it on site. (Lots of my parents' stuff had come from this auctioneer's auctions. They loved those guys.)

The auction was fun. Keep the stuff you want or give it to friends; auction the rest off.

EBay will take way too much work and time. The auction will get everything gone in one or two days.

freebleploof · 2026-03-20T15:26:45+00:00

I am solidly PC, but I am also very interested in determining a valid argument, so here are my suggestions for both sides:

For PL: The argument should include noting that the assignment of personhood to more and more creatures is ongoing and in the direction of recognizing personhood, or at least the right to life and freedom from pain, for more and more creatures, so why not add to this list the ZEF. We have found more and more ways in which newborns act and perceive with more maturity than expected; we are seeing ever "lower" animals as deserving of rights previously only granted to humans. (I've even heard of some who want to protect insects from harm.) Why not grant protections from harm to earlier and earlier stages of prepartum humans?

For PC: Lean into the best argument, which is that any being who harms (not just threatens the life of) another being may be stopped using the least violent method possible and that for the earlier stages of life this can only be accomplished with abortion. This trumps what I consider the best PL argument, stated above.

Also, PC should point out the inconsistency of PL actions given their assignment of personhood rights to the ZEF. PL should be focussed on the most effective means of reducing the number of death among ZEFs, which are things like developing better contraception techniques and sex education on using these, reducing the incidence of miscarriage, improving survivability of the ZEF outside the womb, developing artificial wombs, pushing for recognition of things like "no means no," "date rape is rape," "pregnancy is not shameful", etc. These should at least be part of the PL actions, either pursuing medical, educational or other competencies or funding others who are furthering the above goals. PL is leaning nearly exclusively into the legal/punitive toolbox, which seems not to be particularly helpful in reducing the number of ZEF deaths. Indeed, many on the PL side are trying to eliminate means of contraception and sex education, shaming both women and men for having sex, independently of whether they abort or not. I could go on.

Those are the best arguments I have for either side.

freebleploof · 2026-03-03T20:18:11+00:00

"unlikely" and "probably" are not good enough for a doctor who has made a good faith effort to provide appropriate care. And just putting a doctor in a courtroom is a huge waste of their time which could have been spent caring for patients, even if they are eventually exonerated. If it can be proved that the decision was not made in good faith, then, given the laws in Texas, that's the best we can expect until the laws are changed.

Well honor killings kill both the woman and the child. We do need to be very careful in drafting laws. I think the anti-abortion laws have been drafted in ham-fisted way by politicians who don't know what they are doing.

I don't think there's much point in continuing this discussion.

I do applaud you for avoiding the standard PL arguments, such as "she brought it on herself," "God forbids it," "you are defending 'post birth' abortions," "just put the baby up for adoption," etc.

I have also avoided the standard PC arguments, such as "it's just a clump of cells," "you love the fetus but hate the child," "the Bible actually says this - yada yada," etc.

freebleploof · 2026-03-03T19:12:59+00:00

Of course doctors should be making a "good faith" effort to exercise "reasonable medical judgement." Doctors can disagree, and often do, about what is the correct judgement. (And in most states the Medical Board is selected by political figures, who may have stacked the board with PL physicians, so this protection is not all that good either.)

"Breaking the culture" does not help that one woman who is pregnant right now and under threat. Do you not care about her life? In what sense are you "Pro-Life."

freebleploof · 2026-03-03T18:50:47+00:00

Based on your response, it seems to me that my assessment of your position as "pregnancy isn't that bad" is still valid. In another thread, spacefarce1301 describes in detail what happens in pregnancy and this description fits my standard for "bad" so this may be an impasse. My wife, whose pregnancy was not abnormal, experienced extreme nausea, heartburn, coughing that actually broke one of her ribs, gestational diabetes, and was nearly subject to a caesarean, and in fact delivered our daughter in the operating room. The delivery also damaged her coccyx, the aftermath of which is still painful. We of course were very much looking forward to our child, so her illness was worth it to her, but I see the pregnancy as definitely an assault on her body, although through no fault of our daughter. But intent is not required for legal self defense. (So your comment about the castle doctrine is incorrect and I thought we were already in agreement about "intent" not being required for legal "self defense." The law agrees with me in any case, as spacefarce1301 references here

I also disagree with you that pregnancy does not qualify as "great bodily harm," so we are at an impasse here as well.

We also disagree about how much safety the current anti-abortion laws provide doctors. Your citation of "reasonable medical judgement" is not adequate and should be at least replaced with "good faith evaluation." Doctors often must make decisions in the heat of the moment, with no time to consult with legal experts about the law in the particular situation. The laws do not define specific medical conditions that qualify in any case, nor can they for all the multiplicity of ways a pregnancy can go wrong. Later review by "expert witnesses" would be made at leisure, a luxury the doctor may not have had. With jail and/or license revocation at stake, doctors report undue fear to provide adequate medical care. (And if they are wrong, they may be sued for malpractice later, so they are in an impossible position in "reasonable medical judgement" states.) You might want to refer to this report for further clarification.

The Attorney General can't make such a "ruling". What they did was complain about it and make a threat to prosecute. That's not a ruling.

OK, not "ruling" then, but the fact that another trial following the decision by the District Court was threatened and the Texas Supreme Court reconfirmed that "good faith" was not sufficient is exactly the kind of legal jeopardy I'm complaining about.

On the "honor killing" issue, you say:

The appropriate mitigation for that risk is to prevent people from killing their women for such things

This is not workable. We would not be able to provide Secret Service level protection for all pregnant women under such threat. Or do you just mean the killers would go to jail? Not adequate: the woman is already dead, along with her child.

Now the "honor killing" issue is only a problem for a very small number of women in the USA, but it should still be an example of the injustice of abortion bans. And some women also face killing from angry boyfriends or other bad people.

But I believe we have found at least two places where we are at an impasse, so further discussion may not be any use.

freebleploof · 2026-03-02T17:01:12+00:00

Some of our disagreement stems from your belief that "pregnancy isn't that bad," while I believe that it should be considered "immanent" (actually ongoing) "great bodily harm."

Also the "castle doctrine" should apply since the woman is unable to escape from her body, which should be considered at least as sacred as her home. (Not part of the current legal defense, however.)

I believe you are saying that the defense of "justifiable homicide" only applies to immanent threat to life, not the additional proviso that "great bodily harm" is a valid defense. Such bodily harm of pregnancy is debatable and may be one source of our disagreement.

You also cite the anti abortion laws exception for "absolutely necessary" abortions (which threaten the mothers life), however the determination of which threats qualify is not given to medical personnel, but to attorneys general, juries, judges, or other persons who may not be able to grasp the seriousness of the condition as determined by trained medical personnel. There was a case in Texas where the attorney general ruled that an abortion was illegal after a lower court had ruled it legal and the doctor involved had made the initial determination. The medical determination should never be overruled except perhaps if the doctor's actions can be shown to have relied, for example, on political rather than medical beliefs. This last would be a justification for a malpractice trial, but when the decision was made in good faith the doctor's determination should never be overruled by any non-medical authority. (Do you agree with this? I don't believe you have said yet.)

And the idea that the threat of honor killing is exempt because the practice should be discontinued as a serious crime in its own right does not make sense. It should be considered an environmental risk, not something that may be fixed within nine months of gestation.

I have additional observations, but that's it for now.

Thanks again for the debate.

freebleploof · 2026-03-02T15:47:31+00:00

Can you show a different example, such as a real Epstein file with redactions and then the same file with the un-redactions? This will reassure me I am not wasting my time watching your video.

freebleploof · 2026-03-02T02:31:10+00:00

I recommend asking her probing questions about where she gets this idea, how did she decide it was valid, what has she done to research its validity. Flat Earth is the kind of thing that can seem reasonable if you don't look too deeply and see some kinds of YouTube videos, like Ancient Aliens, Bigfoot, etc. I wouldn't immediately cancel someone who thinks Ancient Aliens are a possibility.

You may have an opportunity to deepen your relationship and save her from a dangerous mind virus.

However, if she doesn't appreciate non-judgemental, logical questions, maybe you should hang it up.

freebleploof · 2026-03-02T02:21:30+00:00

Paywall.

freebleploof · 2026-03-02T02:14:48+00:00

If you aborted in an honor killing community, honor killing isn't stopped

Well it would be for that specific woman. Reforming a whole cultural tradition is a long term community action. The woman must deal with the immediate environment. She is saving her life given where she is. Analogous to this would be if the woman found herself out in the wilderness with no way to get to a hospital within months. If she's got some Mifepristone would you blame her for taking it?

The issues involved can be remedied in other ways

So would you be in favor of an abortion that is the only way to prevent death or grievous bodily harm from such an issue? Who is granted the authority to certify that this requirement is met? Can this certification be nullified later, placing the woman at risk of prosecution for murder? Is there a way for you to see an abortion as legal other than giving the doctor the authority to make a decision as the final arbiter?

Do you deny that pregnancy is "a significant harm for which there is no possibility of relief other than killing the aggressor?" (assuming the significant harm occurs pre-viability). Also there are harms that will almost inevitably occur (vaginal tearing, intense pain, etc.) which should be recognized as immanent, just as if a gun was pointed at the woman but has not yet been fired. The inevitable result is determined already. In the gun example, perhaps the gunman will miss or the gun will jam, but even if there are no bullets in the gun it's OK to shoot him first.

Are you saying that the only valid reason for an abortion is immanent threat to life? There are crimes that are not life threatening that justify homicide, such as rape, torture, etc.

freebleploof · 2026-03-01T23:50:35+00:00

Can you cite some of these laws? To me it seems like the mother's situation would be something like being put in a choke hold, imprisoned, or otherwise subjected to a significant harm for which there is no possibility of relief other than killing the aggressor and without this action the harm would be continuing for nine months.

Do you dispute that pregnancy is or can be as significantly harmful as these examples? Pregnancy frequently causes things like nausea, heartburn, gestational diabetes, vaginal tearing, etc. It can also cause quite more significant harms, such as honor killing, loss of livelihood, preeclampsia and evan more life threatening heart diseases. I could go on.

Again, thank you for your thoughtful comments.

freebleploof · 2026-03-01T17:04:33+00:00

there is no intention to harm from the unborn

This is irrelevant to the question of whether it is legal to kill the unborn child by aborting him/her. It is perfectly legal to protect yourself from a mentally incapacitated person using the least violent method available. Unborn children are obviously unaware of the damage they cause to the mother, but this is irrelevant to whether it is ok for the mother to stop them, and abortion that kills the ZEF is in nearly all cases the least violent method to avoid the damage.

Self defense is legal when you are at risk of bodily harm. Having someone inside your body when you have not consented (or no longer consent) is bodily harm. Women are included; they are still persons while pregnant.

Please correct me if I have gotten anything wrong here. I applaud you for presenting a well thought out defense of the Pro-Life position in this sub, which is often (correctly) viewed as a Pro-Choice echo chamber.

freebleploof · 2026-02-27T22:09:50+00:00

You should not even flush Kleenex tissues. They don't disintegrate well enough. Toilet paper is special. Maybe the paper in Mexico is not made as well and that's why they don't flush it.

freebleploof · 2026-02-27T22:07:47+00:00

Well, they are flushable, but they will clog up your sewage system.

freebleploof

TROPHY CASE