RedDenver

Except that you're missing the obvious reversal that it might be you that is ignorant. And you're avoiding having to address the contradiction I've pointed out.

No, you're missing the point and making a circular argument. You're making the pro-life argument that we should ban abortion because that protects children by your definition of what are and aren't children. I'm making the argument that by that definition and argument, all the other children that aren't fetuses should also be protected. The contradiction I'm pointing out is that the pro-life group doesn't vote to protect non-fetus children; therefore, that contradiction undermines the entire argument based on morality. The pro-choice argument doesn't have that contradiction because they have a different definition of what is and isn't a child. You're using your own definition to call the pro-choice crowd immoral, but that's not a contradiction for them because they don't agree with your definition.

Except nobody has said either of those things. It's just people setting up a strawman argument.

That doesn't follow from anything I've said. In what way does the pro-choice voters not support already born children?

I'm not sure if you don't understand that you're supporting my point, or if it's brilliant satire in support of my point. Either way: yes, good point.

As are all the children who are suffering or dying of starvation, homelessness, and lack of healthcare, yet the same people that are vote to end abortion also vote for the party that refuses to end these things and even make them worse. And there's no ethical or moral question about whether already born children are a person or alive. If the pro-life crowd wants me to take their politics seriously, then they need to act seriously on issues where there's absolutely no question that children are being harmed. Until then, it just looks like words empty of morality.

Actually teach already showed the exact difference between political and brand symbols in this post. He's clarifying that he didn't buy those brands for all the other reasons you might do so (need pants or shoes to wear) and instead he's doing it for political reasons. (Yes, I realize he's really just trying to be ridiculous.) To put it another way, the difference is between wearing a Nike swoosh (or whatever brand) and wearing a "I support sweatshops" logo. Those are not at all similar.

You're making the argument that all injustices are equivalent, which is obviously not true. Yes, but they make bad analogies when they aren't equally applicable.

You're both missing the most important point here: a political symbol is not at all the same as a brand symbol. You're basically arguing that wearing a swastika is the same as wearing the Mercedes symbol.

Let's see if Schultz can poll above 1% before even worrying about this.

Holy false equivalency, Batman!

I have major concerns with Kamala Harris and her record of prosecuting the poor and letting the rich go free. And I want to get money out of politics, but Harris (and others like Gillibrand and Booker) has been making the rounds at Wall St to get money. We don't need another President in the pocket of Wall St.

It's also common to the US Navy as well.

I see an EMP attack (which would require many EMP's to take out any significant portion of the grid as the power decreases with the cube of the distance or would require detonating a megaton nuclear device which would result in a nuclear retaliatory response from the US) as being similar to a hurricane or other natural disaster that destroys infrastructure. And the EMP wouldn't take down power lines like a storm can - the damage would be more centralized. (And would be mostly limited to electronics as most analog systems like transformers, power lines, circuit breakers, etc. wouldn't be damaged except by nuclear EMP's.) The power companies (and the government including FEMA, the military, national guard, etc.) would then start fixing things. It might take months in some places, but more like days in most places is what I expect. Yes, it would be devastating, but not like a nuclear attack or other sustained conventional bombing attacks would be, which is why an EMP attack against the US is dumb. The US military would be unaffected and would retaliate with physically destroying the infrastructure and military power of the attacker, which will be LOTS more things than just electronics and power grid. And that's assuming the US doesn't respond with a nuclear attack. P.S. Additionally, an EMP is defeated (or strongly minimized) with a Faraday cage. If we're really worried, then we could put a metal cage around sensitive infrastructure (like a server rack could protect the servers inside). And many buildings with metal roofs, metal siding, or closely spaced metal rebar in the concrete will act as a Faraday cage and limit the effectiveness.

It would be disruptive for sure, but it'd be less than a lightning strike would do, so I suspect the grid would come back in hours or days. However, an EMP attack is an act of war, so it seems like a terrible idea since our military would do far, far worse to them in response.

Electronics can be hardened against EMP's, which most if not all of the military's equipment is and satellites are hardened even more since they are under constant bombardment of high energy particles and rays.

Isn't that what got passed in the Senate (100-0) and in the House but Trump vetoed? (I'm honestly asking.)

Here's a libertarian view on why walls won't work: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-wall-wont-work

Is Acosta some sort of wall or immigration expert? I mean, if there's evidence of a wall being effective, I'd love to see it but since Trump and the Repubs haven't produced it since it became a major talking-point during the 2016 primary, I doubt it exists.

The immigrants turned themselves in. That would have happened with or without a wall. And I'm not saying we shouldn't have ways to prevent or minimize illegal immigration - just that a wall does almost nothing but costs a lot and is against the very fabric of what America stands for. I'm an engineer and can tell you that any wall that humans can build, humans can also get around or destroy. Edit: I got eyeTrolled, so I guess that means I've won the debate. What do I get?

<sigh> Another example of why a wall makes no sense and is ineffective: Largest single group of migrants ever tunnels under border wall in Arizona, says Border Protection Not only was the steel wall ineffective, but CBP didn't catch them - the immigrants turned themselves over to CBP. And here's an image to show it's not some flimsy fence:

He's being sarcastic.

And I think that's going to be a problem for getting the nomination. IMO Biden is still living in the 90's when Republicans and Democrats could compromise, but now figures like McConnell aren't willing to compromise and often lie and renege on their promises, and I fear Biden will succumb to them. But I think the bigger issue for Biden will be money in politics and supporting a Republican candidate during the Trump era and while Dems were striving for a blue wave midterm.

Haha, I still have a yahoo address for my junk mail. I've watched some other interviews with him and there's a lot of nuance in what he's trying to say. I'm probably going to read the book but I've got about a dozen books I'm working on first.

Well, I have a huge issue with someone that wants to be the Presidential nominee for their party but helps an opposition candidate that voted with Trump (88.8%) and the Repub party line and, despite Biden praising his record on cancer, voted in favor of repealing the ACA every single time along with a bunch of other votes to strip people of healthcare. Plus you're ignoring the elephant in the room: Biden took $250k to give that speech.