If that doesn’t light a fire under your lazy ass…
In 2016, you weren’t very excited about Hilary… but you knew there was no way that clown Trump would win, so you just sat that one out…You and way too many other people. Then Trump did get elected.
Trump, with McConnell’s help, seated 3 right-wing ideologues on the supreme court. Today, those righties, along with a couple seated by GWB, completely ended all federal protection for a woman’s rights over her own body.
If that doesn’t light a fire under your lazy ass, you can kiss American democracy goodbye right now…
Moscow Mitch violated the Constitution by not permitting a confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland (Obama's nominee to SCOTUS). He claimed it was too close to the election to have the hearing. The election was ten months away.
When Trump nominated judges for SCOTUS, McConnell happily created a "carve out" in the filibuster so Democratic Senators were castrated. McConnell held a confirmation hearing for Amy Barrett just two weeks before the election.
If the Republicans win back the House and get one more Senator, they will make abortion illegal nationwide. McConnell will be happy to get rid of the filibuster so the Republicans can accomplish that goal.
Yep, as predicted, more fear mongering...
You got anything other than personal political opinion?
Try this to start:
House Republicans eye 15-week abortion ban after Roe ruling
Is that your personal political opinion?
So no abortions after 15 weeks... That's not a complete abortion ban is it? it's not making abortion illegal is it?
Sounds like reasonable regulation to me... A pregnant woman has 3 & 3/4th months to make up her mind if she wants to keep her child or not....
Very reasonable in my opinion... Nothing is being taken away she still has her choice and control of that choice...
It also conforms to abortion law in most of the world... (especially Europe)
So I guess it really is about absolutism isn't it...
Not really. A decent biology class could tell you this. Many women don't know they're pregnant until 6 or more weeks along. That cuts considerably into the time available for decision-making and planning. Lack of access to a facility adds a further burden, by design.
Being forced to carry a baby they are not prepared to support and care for to term is now much more than an "opinion"... it is a very difficult and oppressive REALITY for many American women. Republicans are making it clear they have no intention stopping with this.
I'm sorry I scared you.
Are you pregnant?
If you think the Republicans are actually willing to settle for that, guess again.
sometimes, arguments, go nowhere
As predicted, the usual suspects, untruth tellers, continue gaslighting us by any means necessary. Are you 'woke' yet democrats? You let them punk you up to this point, CAN YOU HEAR AND SEE TRUMPISM NOW?!
The left love Europe, except when it comes to abortion laws. Then they don't even want to discuss it.
They certainly seem to be.
Maybe soon they will realize that being 'woke' isn't resonating with voters.
Well... My arch-conservative nephew thinks I am.
European nations, for the most part, don't make it impossible to get an abortion until the deadline has passed, and then say "whoops, time's up!"
Not being one, I wouldn't hazard to guess what they are aiming for... If it is an absolute ban, I'll be out there doing everything I can do to shut that down... Cause it is morally wrong for them to impose their belief system on another the same as it is wrong for democrats to do the same..
And maybe you should take your, language nazism, off my comment. You're not a democrat or equivalent of one, so on this one, I am pretty sure you don't get a voice. Democrats stop over-talking. Just do it. Where ever conservatives are- they are demonstrating 'power' and control (action) over their spaces with a "in yo face" attitude to boot!
And after taking action they come sit in yo face and talk you to death about it.
I have every right to voice my opinion whether you like it or not!
Don't bother to look at polls proving me right.
Get lost with that language Nazi shit!
That is some weak sauce!
Forgive me, but I don't have time for arch-conservatives bull crap. They're full of it. Who cares what term they disparage. I think they are full of it.
Actually, the 15-week abortion law in FL states that the 15-week start is from the 1st day after the women's last period. That effectively cuts the 15 weeks to 11 weeks, of course, anyone with half a brain is aware that the monthly period is not universal to all women. The half-a-brain rule eliminates many politicians and supporters of the 15 week gambit.
And that is wrong.. It should start in my opinion from the time she is medically established to be pregnant, which would include a home pregnancy test...
Take all guesstimation out of it...
Probably not the best solution, but the particulars could be sorted out afterwards... Definitely better than guessing the end of the last period, she could easily not be pregnant by 3-6 weeks past... Science will come up with an answer as soon as there is a demand for it....
And the 15 week law will create a demand for it...
You are not a democrat and you don't play one for convenience. I was looking for any "resonating" from a republican when I wrote the comment. And you knew that Furthermore, I have every right to voice the word "woke" whether you like it or not. And I will. Bump that. I don't need you to 'expertly' tell me how I should address those I vote for and with.
What other medical decisions do you think should receive outside scrutiny? Why in the world should anyone know the status of an individual?
It is actually normal for teenage girls to have very irregular menstrual cycles, and they are the same people who would have difficulty accessing reliable contraception. They may not have the means to get to a doctor on their own, and therefore rely on their partners to use condoms. That's pretty much a recipe for an unwanted pregnancy that will not be detected early.
That is for sure!
You can write whatever you wish. Doesn't mean I will willingly swallow the swill.
If you think 'woke' policies are helping Democrats, by all means, keep on keeping on!
Polls and even some Democrats have tried to get the Party to see it is a losing proposition.
It's a horrible solution. Passing a law that you know is a problem and waiting to fix it afterward is at best ass-backward.
Thank you, I will. Sitting around waking on conservatives to cold-cock them ain't helping liberals one damn bit. And by now, liberals should see that conservatives are focused on them like white on rice. It is liberal wake the blank up o'Clock!
Wow--just like you with your daily diatribes about 'some conservatives'!
LMAO!
You can call it whatever you like. I don't mind. Because I see what is happening. And on that note: Clarence is warning liberals to 'get ready' for the next batch of decisions once the cases 'hit.'
Don't be scared.
Kavika, I think I saw a breaking news story this morning that Florida is reintroducing a fetal heartbeat bill that DeSantis has signaled he will sign when it comes up to him? Did you hear this just today locally?
He is saying is he ready to rule on things and overturn them. He flat out says it and some people will still deny.
Thing is ole clarence needs to get the required number of OTHER justices to agree to hear those "cases " i think if i remember right its a total of 5 have to agree to hear one , remember the court only hears those they agree to hear , they get to pick and choose so to speak .
You are only excusing what he is saying. He is on the highest court in the land basically inviting people to bring the lawsuits and he would vote accordingly.
You see no problem with a justice doing that?
Maybe so, in my experience all laws passed have issues that can not be foreseen that need to be adjusted for... And laws generally have prospective application... I don't care what political perspective a person takes, there are no "Perfect" laws passed right out the gate... they all need to be adjusted as time and conditions warrant...
And such is better done on the local level benefitting the needs of the community served, not a blanket, nationwide, one size fits all approach that was Roe...
Roe was bass-ackwards in creating something that didn't exist to solve a problem in a manner that didn't serve well at all, as the 50 years of unresolved back and forth has so readily demonstrated.... The abortion issue in this nation is settled, the rest of it is simple regulation like all other medical procedures have regulations... And that is best served on the local level where each state has it's agencies to handle that...
I understand the angst of losing a blanket law covering every one no matter how well served or not is to the political people who support such a gut wrenching thing... But think for one minute about those that weren't being served by the law... It's a great day for those who's positions are just as valid as any other...
Personal opinions aside...
Lol. He's been saying that for years. IF you think this the first time Thomas has called the doctrine of "substantive due process" erroneous, you haven't been paying attention.
(1) He wants those cases reheard to see if their is another basis upon which they might stand. Doesn't say how he would rule under other theories.
(2) Not a single other Justice agreed with him.
(3) Eight justices signed opinions literally saying the exact opposite in Dobbs.
No one woke up today and said "Oh my God! Clarence Thomas doesn't think substantive due process is valid." Anyone who has paid the slightest bit of attention to the Court has known that for decades.
You admit it is a medical decision yet you turn around and want a medical decision to be decided by a local town?
Pregnancy and abortion are medical problems and should not have the scrutiny of anyone besides the woman and her doctor.
Obviously he is not the only one willing to go against precedent.
Talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Yes he is, and anyone who understands how the law works knows it and will readily admit it... EVERYTHING based upon the "Right to Privacy" created on Roe is now legally suspect..
Pretty much every lawyer in the nation knows this... Will that result in a flood of reversals? no.. It takes roughly 10 years on average for a case to pass thru the state courts to reach the federal level at the Supreme Court, federally it takes about 4 years to get there on average...
There may be challenges to many things anticipating this ruling coming up, but it's going to take a couple of decades for all of them to work their way thru the system and most of them will not be aimed at the heart of the ruling they are challenging... Then the Court picks and chooses what it's going to hear and what it leaves lie...
By that time the abortion issue will be long settled in the individual states, each state choosing which way it wishes to go... Unless the US Congress gets it's collective asses in gear and creates a nationwide abortion law which becomes the minimum all states have to adhere to and it is upheld by the Supreme Court... (something they couldn't do 50 years ago and don't appear any closer to now)
Such is the nature of the law and legal system in this nation... It changes with time and it abhors instant blanket change... The holding in Roe was bound from the start to eventually be overturned... As RBG was known to say herself cause it was bad law...
Obviously he is not the only one willing to go against precedent
Correct. Every single Justice appointed to the Court in the last 100 years has voted to overturn a precedent.
That's different than voting to overturn oneself, which very few justices have done.
actually , no I dont have a problem with that being done , because if i did i should also have a problem with any elected polititian that does the same . if so many elected officials would be facing trump like charges of insurrection and sedition simply because of what they say .
But because i understand what is required , what he says actually means nothing , because there are 4 more justices ( that have their own thoughts as individuals) that have to also agree to hear any case and there is no guarentee they would vote to rule as he would like , it could be an epic backfire .
Excuse me? there are medical standards written into law and administered by several state boards and agencies in each and every state....
There is no "Local" town that sets or administers such... Any law passed by a state will be subject to said boards and agencies...
The Woman, her Doctor, and what the State medical authorities allow... Just like it has been for well over 100 years...
Hyperbolic unrealistic political fearmongering is all you have left?
Ginsburg was pro choice and never would have shot down Roe.
Everyone should have a right to privacy when it comes to their medical decisions. Do you agree or not?
Seems to me that you are saying that marriage has no rights of privacy, medical decisions has no rights pf privacy, etc.
So I am now thinking no, you do not think abortion and pregnancy is medicinal.
Overturn oneself?
This is not an elected politician that we can vote out. This is a openly partisan person that admits he has an agenda and is on this court for life. The fact that you all will just dismiss this like business as usual is weird.
So not going to answer my question? Do you think pregnancy and abortion are medical decisions?
And all you got left is insults?
Roe was the only thing dictating what happens with abortion? There are no other state medical agencies that now have to do what they have been doing for the last 150 years?
Do you guys on your side even see the ridiculousness of your position? of course not...
Without Roe we are already back in the dark ages... nothing else matters, nothing else will work...
Absolutism at it's finest...
Overturn oneself?
I mean to vote overturn a precedent they voted for. It happens but it's rare. Highly unlikely justices will reverse positions they committed to in Dobbs.
Ah, thanks.
You mean a consistent legal philosophy?? Lol
Impeach Thomas for being consistent and applying the same principles to every case he hears! The horror!
I did answer your question... The fact that you want to direct the answer into something you can attack is not my concern and is irrelevant...
The conversation is devolving to the point of meaninglessness, and there is a large brewing desire to ridicule the messenger cause you can't challenge the truth....
So I will bow out now... Given the approach that is coming, my point has been made....
And all you got left is deflection and insults...
I didn't see it.
A simple yes or no is not that difficult.
He is not supposed to show his hand to produce a picture of a non biased no opinion till all facts of that specific matter, are presented. Yes, he just invited the out of touch with reality 'right' to bring forth the arguments so that rights might possibly be controlled or modified so as to impose the will of some, upon, some others. Our forefathers are causing tombstones to gently wave in those amber fields of grain, as forced is that of the centrifugal, B cause even the Laws of Physics, were meant to be broken, at least once a day, like clock work, from a clock that doesn't work, overtime, once a day, like a vitamin, some won't swallow, but only because it's a chewable, and if you stop, and watch a stop watch go, from 0 to a past time, is it actually , now your pastime to employ the puncher inn of the clock that doesn't work overtime daily due to week argumeants for sum, because you would have to force some others to tolerate the indifference that differentiates between the ability to tell over time, that one, is the decider of what is actually True, no matter the evidence, or lack there of, is now ruled above what one sees and hears with their own pairs of eyes and ears, cause it's all fake News till you make it not up to yourself to actually LEARN, and diligently pursue the actual truth, as opposed to lying in your room stop watching the clock work, because it doesn't change my mind of that which i have personally found to be real, in the reality i in which i chose to make sweet n real with artificial sweetners making up the ingredients gathered to make up reality, artificially duplicated with original thoughts , yet to be thought of, till thought of
i think....therefore, i am thinking, about thinking.....i don't know,,,,,,it was just a thought
well, at least i thought it was, but was it a thought about thinking about a thought that did up and bring this about
or, just a black and white flashback to those slippery acid daze, where , one just kept dropping that acid, like a rushed pass not caught by the thrown receiving perceived , for the thrown did the throwing, and was thrown out to incite out of sight and mind lost to time
time spent watching a stop watch like clockwork that doesn't work overtime cause the clock was punched in the face of reason is where i pilot my plane and simply fancy thought
less of's,
by
More Ons 'right' where i left them , worn
out
Says the guy who said this:
I said you're talking out of both sides of your mouth because you are. You proudly announce that you marched for abortion rights, while supporting the curtailment of abortion rights. You contradict yourself.
Without Roe, there are states planning to force the victims of rape and incest to carry the pregnancy that started with their attack to term. To you, whether a woman or girl should be subject to such physical, emotional, and possibly financial abuse should be determined by geography - whether or not she's lucky enough to live in an area that allows her to limit her own victimization.
But you marched for abortion rights.
Both sides of your mouth.
There is nothing we can do. Now most people know he is a complete partisan. He is tainting the court with his rhetoric.
i do that, so i can hear the other side of the argument, while gargling adjusted scope and magnitude
well you got one part right , maybe 2 , he is appointed and i do think he is partisan , but he is by no means set for life .
makes me wonder what you actually do know about government, its processes and mechanisms .
you are aware that justices can be impeached right? impeachment is not only for Presidents or VPs. and pretty much worksthe same way , matter of fact i think, unless i am wrong more justices have been impeached and removed than have presidents .
I haven't contradicted myself one bit... I support abortion for those that need it or desire it... within reason...
I have never supported the method the court used to establish abortion as legal in this country... At one time I was willing to support that ends justify the means judgment but as time wore on and I watched that singular judgment used way beyond it's intended scope to justify all sorts of stuff that had nothing to do with saving women's lives.. I came to the understanding that it did more damage than good...
You are expressing that the federal blanket abortion rights that were just struck down is a complete curtailment of abortion in this country... that position isn't factually or constitutionally true...
So, all I am now getting is your absolutist opinion completely ignoring the facts and the law...
Opinions and understandings grow and change as time goes by, mine have, it appears by your own words that yours haven't...
Makes you wonder? Well keep on wondering because I am not the one excusing what he is doing.
No SC justice has ever been impeached.
I am curious as to what these things are you have seen...
Sure, sure, one of the "reasons" being where the woman lives.
So, women in different states have different abortion needs? Rights to bodily autonomy shouldn't be "blanket", for, well, reasons.
An expert on my opinions, past and present, are you?
Unfortunately, You are wrong brother....
Has a Justice ever been impeached?
The only Justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805. The House of Representatives passed Articles of Impeachment against him; however, he was acquitted by the Senate.
As for the rest of the federal judiciary? you are then correct....
but, who elses opinion could you trust, in your opinion ? or should i ask out of Nowhwere Man
Unless it involves the life of the mother it is not a medical problem. Abortion for the convenience of the mother (which is why most abortions are performed) is not a life or death.
Sorry, not going to take the bait...
I am only an expert on my own opinions... {chuckle}
And I can converse on the ones you express openly here in public... But your free to change them to what ever you want them to be to suit whatever argument you want to make... None of my business what you believe in...
Don't want them commented on don't express them...
Have a nice day...
and what is wrong with convenience?
It wasn't a yes or no question. Abortion can be a medical decision if the mother's life is in jeopardy. An a abortion for convenience (most of them) is NOT a medical issue other than it requires a medical professional to perform it.
You do not get to pick and choose what consists of a medical decision to fit your views.
"Pregnancy and abortion are medical problems and should not have the scrutiny of anyone besides the woman and her doctor."
That should include the FEDERAL government!
It's not very smart to make pronouncements on topics one admits one is not an expert on, wouldn't you agree?
doesnt mean it cant happen now does it ?
and thank you for providing the proof that they can be impeached as i said .
ehh, your welcome to think whatever you want , even if you are wrong .
you asked me if i was bothered by his actions , i was truthful because im not bothered.
and for the record i disagree with yesterdays ruling , but since it is what it is and the question now falls to the states to decide , that is where i will focus my attention , in my states jurisdiction with the elected body here .
(not ) sorry im not as agitated as you would like or that suits you . just not my style .
There is nothing inherently wrong with convenience. I really like having a 7-11 down the street from me but that convenience does not take a human life. Abortion does.
All the federal government did was give choice.
And state governments.
Exactly. The federal government prevented scrutiny from those other than the woman and her doctor.
What am I wrong about? What did I say that was wrong?
Do you really think someone is going to try to impeach him? Even if they did he would most likely be acquitted as the one from over two hundred years ago.
Somehow I get the feeling if this was a Liberal justice you all would be screaming bloody murder.
i was speaking of the entire federal judiciary, which includes the SCOTUS.
still more judges impeached and removed than presidents too...
If the issue is on a ballot I most certainly do get to choose. I also have the right to petition my legislative representatives as to my choices. I have the right to elect those that I agree with or to vote out those I disagree with on those choices. I have the right to support and be a member of groups of like minded people and to voice our choice.
Do you propose to take those rights away from me? Are the only choices that you approve of to be allowed?
When you get pregnant come back and talk about your choice.
And since it is a conservative leaning justice you are all up in arms. If he was a liberal you would be bending over backwards to defend him.
I said when I have that choice. Your comment is what the left always brings out when they know they have no rational response to a comment they don't like
There is no justice I have defended, Liberal or conservative.
an opinion on one's own opinion, is redundant, but that's just my opinion on that which i redundantly have expressed via a passing lane on the torn rotator cuffed to shoulder a burden of proof handily passed by weighing me down the clothes and opinions i share because i am greedy, about my own opinion, We ALL are thus, Y i have no opinion, on my opinion of having no opinion
So you have the choice to get pregnant?
So men can get pregnant. Miracles never cease.
You have an opinion with your opine.....
No but there are many on the left that seem to think they can. There are high ranking liberals that can not even define what a woman is when asked. The left even thinks that it is OK for men to pretend to be women so they can compete and win against real women when they were hopeless to beating men.
yea, but in my opinion, i will cease opinionating upon these opines, cause like cheesy Whines, they grow worse, and mold, is used to reproduce opinions on human reproductivity,
... oh, are you making a pro-choice argument now?
you were wrong about him sitting for life with no recourse , you showed that yourself he CAN be impeached , no matter how unlikely it is ,it can still happen .
Now that statement i copied , you do not know me well enough to make that call or judgement so you can check your judgement in the round file in the corner .
and if it WERE a liberal justice spouting their desires , i would do the same thing i am right now , oh i might use sarcasm or make fun of them sure , thats more my style , lets them and their supporters know , they dont have the so called "power " they think they have. kinda like i do with any politician . its just the liberal side give soooo much and many targets of opertunity .
You are basically saying the same thing I am. That there is really nothing we can do.
You use your sarcasm...I use whatever it is I use....
again you would be wrong .
difference between you and i is i dont scream at the sky , i know where the focus needs to be now , i cant do anything about what happened in the past .
but I CAN try and do something where the matter now rests , with my state legislature and govenor . and they are alot closer to me than some pundits sitting in DC.
wyoming lost its only abortion clinic this month , before the ruling , the Dr decided to retire and move to another state and no other dr would take over the practice . there was talkof another clinic opening , but that leak of the ruling put that all on hold and now looks like because of the ruling , it wont happen .
What i understand my state will be doing is reverting back to the law that existed prior to roe ,but that one had exemptions that there is rumbling in state about removing , those i will oppose . as i will oppose the law itself , and vote accordingly .
it wont be easy , wont be over night , but i wont stop either . i just have to convince a simple majority i am on the right path and for them to think the same .
so i will let those that wish to participate in the dog,pony , and clown show to their own means , i know where i need to do the work . and it isnt following the herd here doing nothing but crapping the place up.
So I am screaming at the sky? I have tried to be civil to you and you have done nothing but insult.
As far as your vote, a medical decision should not be up for one as you seem to think it should be.
if disagreement on details is an insult , then have at it . then you must be alot more sensative than one would think.
and please point out where i said a medical decision should be up for a vote?
Im looking at where it stands here , right now with what is presented in my state , i work from there to change things , way to change things is to change the legislature to vote for those things thats the ONLY way a vote will change things or has any influence .
you may not like it , but that is actually the reality of it .
I have been told almost my entire life , men should not and have no say in abortion , i have had some minor disagreements about that throughout my life that are irrelevant , but i accepted that in the end , the choice wasnt the mans it was the womans .
NOW after being told and accepting that , i am being told i need to speak up and support women in this , either i have a say or i dont , i cant cause a pregnancy , i took care of that long ago,so i actually have no say because im not a participating effected party BUT now my help and support is demanded ? i will help and support withing the limits i think are right , not anyone elses , and if thats not good enough ? ill hand you a shovel and a hammer and point you to the beach ..
That is the reality of it now.
So you are saying it can only be done local and not at a federal level. If congress passed and the president signed a bill saying it was a private matter between doctor and patient, you would not be ok with that? If so, why not?
As far as the grumbling about wanting to have a say or not, it is just that.
So you have done something other than post on social media your displeasure since the ruling was announced ?
have you researched as i have how this ruling affects your state or is your state safe ?
IF your state isnt safe have you , contacted and left messages with your state reps and senator as i have ?
because if you havent and all you have done is post to social media the tragedy and criminallity of the ruling , then you might as well just be flapping your gums screaming at the sky which does no good .
AND if you havent , you should be shamed and insulted by your own actions/ inactions for not thinking to do the same yourself .
here is the real insult , FUCK OFF.
Now who is screaming at the sky...Hahaha
So can't answer my question and go off on a tangent. Classy.....
just saw your question , i was composing the other response first , now for your question . it can be state or federal it wont be local , the state wont allow that . , where it rests now is in states hands , if the feds legislature can come up with something , thats good too but i doubt there are the votes to pass that legislation on the national level considering how many already have the trigger bans in place so it will for now likely stay a state issue where it will be dealt with by each individual state and by their state governments .
I have always been pro-choice. Where we differ is in the timing of the choice. I believe that if a woman does not want to become pregnant, she must choose before she crawls in the sack to have sex. Afterward is too late.
you forgot the ! Actually discussing the ruling on social media is action. Debunking blatant LIES, mis truths, exaggerations, and plain old bullshit, can be beneficial to educating those not capable or interested, in attempting to obtain the actual truth and reality where the actual truth and reality are blatantly violated and mutated, with the end result of a divided nation, where conspiracy theories allow the blinded masses of asses to get Jewish Lasik Eye Surgery so the QAnon Quanundrum can see how evil democratic individuals and celebrities cultivate children for consumption, while avoiding that ever troubling reality, that some will never see, as they chose to hear what they wanted to hear, and put their fingers in their ears, and call it Qanon tips, that should NEVER been inserted into ears, like it says on the box.
Your actions listed, are also required to expedite a solution to thwart, to me, an obvious invasion of privacy and attempt to force parenthood on women, for instinctively attempting the act of procreation, when succeeding was never the end game, as most just wish to practice. Primarily elderly White Males wish to dictate what a woman has a right to do with her own body, because they have somehow decided that they know better, than say the actual woman herselfishness as they claim, is what they wish to force share and impose, they most certainly have
and hear i've always heard it should be cuddling time
no i didnt , like johnny hancock , i wanted those sitting on their self made thrones to be able to see it from across the distance .
I haven't heard anything about that, CB.
i have a self made porcelain thrown
out the window with the bathwaterand kitchen sink in feeling, that resonates in the minds lost
at
a substantial cost , and at don't sea,
the depths that which some may and might not go, their way is not always the High way, but when speeding down lifes' lost Highway, finding myself, on the cuff, of a blade of padded and patted down back handed taps, on the shoulder are not possible, as a pat on the back would require the re,moval of many knives that stuck and struck a cord of spinal, then tapped with, shouldering burdens that carry others , blamed on some ass phault, with concrete evidence that is mortar and brick foundations than meat the blackened eye, supporting lost and found nations, Not in UK but D K , and decay away is not okay, because spelt different and with different definitions, cause what would be the definition of definition , if it was taught in a fine prestigious school coarse, to fish.... as we flounder for an answer, i question the beating of the 'right' for the heart of ones Base, stolen, when run around provides the shortest path to the fork in the drawer back , with the knives, that Basically cut Bass from the lines of big mouths and small, as the treble is addicting, and hooks via lures, in blocks of tackled boxes, where wrestled with is an out of the boxing ring that does a bell good, and can occupy time, while waiting in the call waiting waiting room, to get call waiting, so i can talk out of bothsides , of my large dry mouth while beating the drum
fished from a depth of an ocean, that not many will reach
around to help remove the knives stuck
Most of what you posted is your opinion. If the US can't strive to get it right the first time perhaps we should re-evaluate the process.
Nothing is settled law as we saw with the decision by SCOTUS on Roe vs Wade.
Ok if there is convenient, easy to take, 100% neverfailing, fool proof, guaranteed birth control with no side effects that works every time for every woman, until then a backup that is fixes the problem is necessary
There is a 100% effective never failing, guaranteed birth control with not side effects of and works for every woman already. It is called abstinence. If you don't want to take the chance of getting pregnant don't have sex. You know just like all the liberals say men that don't want to be father's should do.
So I guess you think everyone's rights should be the same all over. Do you also think that everyone should have the exact same rights to keep arms and to carry them in public? If not, why are some right able to be restricted by the states while others are not.
We, as Americans, either have due process, which is objective and treats all persons
the same or we don't.
Denying someone control over their own body and their future potential is wrong.
Simple, not political at all.
Then I will ask again since you ducked the question.
Should everyone have the same rights to keep and carry a gun in every state
Absolutely, from sea to shining sea,
regardless of gender, heritage or religious beliefs.
That's called equal protection.
Simple, not political at all.
Said every zealot ever.
Glad to see you oppose affirmative action etc...
I won't travel down the off topic road of whataboutism with you, sorry.
Are women's rights different than men's by virtue of biology?
Apparently they are different I terms of the lefts thoughts on reproductive rights. Women can choose to be a mother or not. A man has no such choice.
“Women can choose to be a mother or not. A man has no such choice.”
There is so much fucked up thinking in that response…
…relieving the man from any responsibility while they hold the power to make decisions to conveniently continue their absolution.
That is not fool proof, also sometimes women get raped
You're not quite making a fair comparison here. The citizens of all states have a right to keep and bear arms, to some degree or another.
Regarding abortion, in some states, it will be legal, and in other states, it will be almost totally banned. Five states will ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest, basically physically and mentally punishing and potentially endangering the life of a woman for having been a victim of sexual assault.
Should a woman's ability to avoid being revictimized for being a victim depend on which side of a state line she lives on?
and it should be her choice. everybody else should stay out especially politicians, preachers and busybodies
Very true. I once worked with a woman who conceived both of her children while she was on the Pill.
“…on the Pill.”
And that may be the next thing to go. Unimaginable, but inexplicably possible.
For starters, there should be no left right injection into this.
No apparently they cannot or abortion would not be the topic, would it?
The man has no choice to be a mother, that much I agree with, but he can choose
not to be a father by abstaining as you so champion.
It takes two to do this particular tango but the male far too often walks away denying
parentage. while the woman is "stuck".
Women can abstain and not become a mother also.
That is even more frightening that the reversal of Roe, IMO.
If ever there were a time for women to go all Lysistrata, this is that moment.
I know of only one woman who became pregnant while abstaining from sexual contact and that happened over 2000 years ago. Abstaining from having intercourse is a 100% foolproof method of preventing pregnancy and childbirth
It should be easier to get an abortion than get a gun
To get a gun all you should have to do is show a voter ID card (good enough to vote then good enough to have a gun)
For an abortion, answer 3 questions: 1 Are you pregnant? 2 Do you want to remain that way? 3 are you ready to fix the problem
" Women can abstain and not become a mother also."
why can't girls have fun?
1)It would be kind of hard to get an abortion if one is not pregnant.
2) should have thought about that before you were able to answer number one in the affirmative ( rape excepted.)
3) there is no problem. You are going to be a mother.
Just to be sure since there seem to be so many on the left that don't seem to know, your real first question should be are you a woman.
Nah. Ra was born to a virgin. So was Horus. And Jason. Possibly Dionysius (he and Jason were both sons of Persephone, but Dionysius may or may not have been fathered by Zeus). Some believe Buddha was, and Genghis Khan. And Mithra, whose birthday Christians stole and gave to Jesus.
So, no, according to your myths and many others, abstinence is not 100%. And according to your myth and many others, abstinent women sometimes are raped by gods, and surely, who can blame them for not being able to fight off a god?
Ah, and there's the point. We all know what this is really about.
Many if not all of those of that you mentioned are just myths as you said and are not mine at all so you lose.
“Women can abstain…”
…straight from the incel handbook.
Yeah, yours is just a myth, too, arkie. With every bit as much (or as little) to support it as theirs.
Except Buddha and Genghis Khan, of course. They were real.
Didn't say they couldn't but there are consequences to having that fun. One of them is that in around nine months later they may become a mommy.
In any case that is all irrelevant anyway
And the partner becomes a daddy.
Never heard of it.
I was surprised to see that out of the 62 times that the term due process was mentioned in the Court's opinion, the Dissenting Opinion only mentioned it twice and one of those was a footnote. The one time that Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan mention it, it isn't in a legal defense of Roe vs Wade but in a criticism of Justice Thomas thoughts on relooking the Court's precedent in future cases.
Is it?
Contraception is not 100%.
Abstinence, according to YOU, is not 100%. And it's irrelevant, as abstinence is not realistic. Do you really think committed couples, perhaps married couples, are going to remain celibate to avoid pregnancy? Would you? Should you be expected to? I don't think so. And since I think you should have the opportunity to get laid (with a consenting partner, of course), I think everybody else should have that same opportunity.
And sometimes they do try that.
The result is often a rape or worse.
Men can abstain or end up paying child support.
I do believe you need to reread what I said. I said abstinence is always effective. Don't put words in my mouth.
Then you should not have had unprotected sex in the first place. Since as you say contraception is not 100% effective becoming a mother is the chance you take.
Why should men only have two options while women get several?
Lets say that unprotected sex is a terrible mistake. Should people lose their constitutional rights because they made a terrible mistake?
By that logic, we don't need fire extinguishers, first aid kits or ice packs as accidents won't happen and we don't need back ups.
No one has lost any constitutional right yet.
Mistakes have consequences
Women who live in states that just made abortion illegal have lost their constitutional rights.
A week ago they had a constitutional right to an abortion, and now they dont.
You specifically mentioned a time when you "knew" it wasn't. You really should look up the definition of "always".
they can travel.
Read this
Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
Does that say that a woman has the right to be secure in her person?. and shall not be violated?
Also Cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited, forced unwanted pregnancy sounds cruel and unusual
Why do you think not a single justice, some of whom are both extremely pro choice and Constitutional experts, has ever claimed the 4th Amendment creates a right to abortion?
They have lost nothing. There never has been a right to an abortion. If you think there was please cite the part of the constitution that says so.
When did I say accidents don't happen?
Yes it does but it does not say that she has a right to an abortion.
Unless she was raped, no one forced a woman to get pregnant. Also pregnancy is neither cruel nor is it unusual nor is it a punishment.
Spoken like a person who's never been pregnant, nor been through childbirth.
should pencils have their erasers removed? Should wrecked cars be left at the scene of the accident or cleaned up?
Perhaps experiencing childbirth would help some to understand. A suggestion for guys to try to get experience would be to shit a 16 lb bowling ball.
Just a thought.
If you don't want to be that way it is very cruel!
Especially knowing the problem could easily be fixed.
But make the poor girl suffer that is really cruel, then burden her with a kid she didn't want and then wonder what when wrong when the unwanted child is abused or does something really bad. Not fixing the first accident can lead to much greater problems down the road.
I don't know why, but it is right there. How can you be secure in your person when there is something inside that you do not want to be there and there is an easy way to remove it?
"shall not be violated " sounds as sacred as "shall not be infringed"
why should they have to waste time and expensive gas?
there was until a few days ago, settled precedent
Yeah, after carrying said bowling ball around for a while.
I actually had an easy pregnancy compared to many, but I can't say it wasn't unpleasant at times. My hips hurt. Like every time I stood, and this was before I'd gained much weight at all. It's a side effect of the pelvis loosening up in preparation for childbirth, and it starts months before the main event.
This, by the way, also leads to some clumsiness. Your joints are loose, and your center of gravity is changing.
Sleeping became impossible. There is no comfortable position. You're not supposed to sleep on your back in late pregnancy, and it was uncomfortable, anyway. Sleeping on your stomach is out for obvious reasons. Side - holy crap, that extra weight turned my hips into pressure points. I felt like they were digging right into the mattress springs. And my legs went numb - like pins and needles in your feet, but it went all the way to my hips. I fell getting out of bed one time, because my legs just sort of forgot what the hell they were doing and my feet couldn't feel the floor. The nights got really long at this stage.
And I had a c-section, which I can tell you for sure is a punishment. You're cut from hip to hip. Air gets under your diaphragm, which causes severe pain in your shoulder, of all places. For the first few days, the nurses check that incision by pushing on it really hard, which is all kinds of fun. It was a fine time to find out I'd developed an iodine allergy I'd never had before. And then your legs swell because your lymph ducts have been severed - that's one they don't warn you about ahead of time, so you're sure you've developed the blood clot in your legs that pregnant women are supposed to watch out for.
Meanwhile, you're eating hospital food, being woken up every single time you manage to doze off by someone wanting to push on your incision, take your lunch order at 5 in the friggin' morning, or ask how you're resting.
Nothing like heading off the deep end.
Both men and women can choose to abstain, or either can choose birth control.
So in states where elective abortion is outlawed, women now have the same reproductive rights as men.
At one time slavery was legal and settled law. Separate but equal was settled law. Do you want to go back to those days? I know I don't.
So instead we are going back to when women are being treated as less than. That other people's religious beliefs are being forced on them. I think that is going backward. Sorry that you don't see that.
There is no problem and there is nothing to be fixed. She had sex and became pregnant and will have à baby and become a mother. It has been that way for millions of years and will continue to be that way for many years to come. If there is a medical issue that is a different issue. Just not wanting to be pregnant or not wanting to be a mother or a baby would be inconvenient are not medical issues.
Except, a much more apt comparison would be if slavery were to be made legal again...
As less than what? She has every right I do. If she doesn't want to be a mother and have that responsibility, she can abstain from having sex just like the man who does not want to be a father.
Why? Because you believe that life starts at conception? That is not my belief. It does not come from my traditions. You are forcing your beliefs on me.
You are forcing me to take on your beliefs.
No, I am not. That is the whole thing with choice. You can choose what you feel is right and I can choose what I feel is right. Right now, you have removed my choice from me.
Not while you live in NY.
yes it is, if for no other reason than the results will not be optimal
You are wrong.
Speaking of crapping the place up . . . . .
which is none and that is bad
"You are forcing me to take on your beliefs. "
Your trying to force us to take yours
“…on the Pill.”
"And that may be the next thing to go. Unimaginable, but inexplicably possible."
TT (Clarence Token Thomas) is doing his best (or should I say Ginni Thomas) to restrict access to birth control, take gay rights backwards, everything except Loving vs. Virginia.
That just takes the fun out of things, what a dull and boring life
Not everybody wants to live like nuns and monks
You're really stating that men have no reproductive rights?
My daughter is moving out of state. And it shouldn't matter where I live. All women are entitled to the same right of deciding for themselves.
We are living through the Orwell Animal Farm where all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Very true.
BINGO!
trumpsters have adopted the lebensborn concept on their march towards fascism.
I actually see that.
If you mean that I believe a human life is more important than your bikini line or your career or your social life then yes, yes I am
Yet that is exactly what you expect men who do not want to be father's to do. Why do you want to treat men different then women?
[deleted]
It's like trying to get the truth into your head. [deleted]
Who is doing the work?
Men do not have to carry around and internally feed what amounts to a parasite and then painfully eject it out through their most sensitive part and put up with the changes it does to their body.
Career, bikini line and figure and timing and convenience, are important and her choice.
There are also legitimate risks to women's health from being pregnant. High blood pressure, blood clots, decreased ability to fight infections, strain on the heart and kidneys, nutritional deficiencies...
Some people just do not care what happens to women - take a good look at Herschel Walker & his comments about women and abortions.
AND there are plenty of them out there JUST like him. Oh, but that's right - his domestic violence is ok now cuz therapy "fixed" him.
They do not. Health for women is reduced to "convenience".
Being pregnant was wonderful for me - in the two pregnancies I brought to term, but damn it was NEVER convenient.
They yammer about BC as if women get pregnant on their own - they yammer on about how men have to pay for children as if women do not & only men support their children... I could go on for days.
Absurd. Condoms. Heard of them?
Wish I could vote that up more than once.
I'm still confused. Wasn't this the party of "it's my choice to wear a mask or not during the pandemic. It's my body, it's my choice." What the fuck?!?
Ever heard of birth control pills or IUDs? There is no need to kill a health developing baby
Prove it.
As for Garland. The justice system dodged a bullet by that partisan human piece of shit not being on the Supreme Court. Looking forward to Garland being put through impeachment proceedings if the Republicans retake the House and Senate- even it they can't fully impeach and remove him. He has turned the DOJ into a Democrat tool to pay back political opponents and created a two tier justice system that is the envy of third world dictators everywhere.
So it is only good if Democrats want to remove the filibuster to accomplish their BS goals of trying to stay in power by changing voting laws?
Remind us all who went nuclear first on getting judicial nominees seated?
Democrats are full of faux outrage and projection. When it comes to violating the Constitution and Senate procedures, Republicans willingly follow where ever Democrats lead.
what world do you dwell within...
NT you do not have the time for pursuing a TRAIL OF GARBAGE and those who 'drive' it around.
I am a flaming liberal... In my opinion, McConnell did not "violate the Constitution." He did however, abandon all pretense of ethics. In 2009 (13 years ago), on Newsvine, I wrote an article titled, "Is this the beginning of the second American Civil War?" I may have actually republished that article here on NT at some point. In any event, the state of American politics today makes it clear... This IS civil war!
Certainly is political warfare. Republicans and conservatives are politically trying to takeover the political 'theater. And, the democrats are still setting up a round table.
Clarence Thomas is feeling his 'oats' finally that justice is talking "all the time now" he is in his element; he has found his voice; "elder justice" is almost his to wield. And what does he do- he warns liberals that he and his cohorts conservatives are going to take back every damn decision liberals strained through SCOTUS' 'teeth.' One by one so conservative states: "Bring on the cases!"
SCOTUS IS OPEN FOR BUSINESS conservative-style!!!
Democrats and Independents keep talking and only talking at your peril.
In the process specified below, Moscow Mitch short-circuited it on step #3. He refused to hold the required hearing.
Supreme Court Nominations Research Guide
Article II section 2 of the Constitution states that the Presidents "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court..." U.S. Const. art. 2 § 2, cl. 2.
The President usually will consult with Senators before announcing a nomination.
When the President nominates a candidate, the nomination is sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration.
The Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on the nominee. The Committee usually takes a month to collect and receive all necessary records, from the FBI and other sources, about the nominee and for the nominee to be prepared for the hearings.
During the hearings, witnesses, both supporting and opposing the nomination, present their views. Senators question the nominee on his or her qualifications, judgment, and philosophy.
The Judiciary Committee then votes on the nomination and sends its recommendation (that it be confirmed, that it be rejected, or with no recommendation) to the full Senate.
The full Senate debates the nomination.
The Senate rules used to allow unlimited debate (a practice known as filibustering) and to end the debate, it required the votes of 3/5 of the Senate or 60 senators (known as the cloture vote). In April 2017, the Senate changed this rule and lowered the required votes to 51 to end debate on Supreme Court nominations (this is commonly known as "the nuclear option ").
When the debate ends, the Senate votes on the nomination. A simple majority of the Senators present and voting is required for the judicial nominee to be confirmed. If there is a tie, the Vice President who also presides over the Senate casts the deciding vote.
He Refused To Hold The Required Hearing.
So what? The Constitution doesn't require a hearing. Confirmation hearings are a relatively new development. They've only been held for less than a hundred years. It's completely up to the Senate how they handle a nomination. They can vote on it the second they receive it or never vote at all. Constitutional either way. Just because they've generally followed a similar process the last few decades doesn't mean the Senate has some sort of Constitutional duty to do it that way.
It is that kind of creative thinking that stabs people in the back though. It's like supreme court nominees who come to the forefront hiding their convictions just to screw over people in a divided society which relies on them to help keep the peace.
Constitutional? I don't see where that is written in the constitution...
That is comical, considering what we have now....
Yea, cause who would want our elected representatives to show any respect to bipartisan agreements that might bear some semblance of moral and ethical agreed upon behaviors, especially, when you have a PIGZ, propped up by agenda driven agendas, to pursue control over what was proposed, as a FREE COUNTRY for any and all. What are your thoughts on such ? An alarming number of ignorant peep holes, showed USA ll, what is inside. Some voted just for and to show them damn liberal elite types, it certainly would 'show them' if we selected and elected straight out Bald Faced LIARS, who, as jurors who get to Judge, and decide, for so many, those who would decide so much for so many.
Besides, why wouldn't we want LIARS placed on the Supreme Court of the land. One of the first images one thinks of when picturing and placing a judge to a Higher Court of Law, wasn't suppose to be that of a one or two Quart appointed for life Liter of nonsensical with evidence immencible, if only it could be found, cause indispensable, was supposed to the TRUTH, but hey, i only LIE, when sitting up in bed, room to think, of bigger things, obtained, via smaller minds, that cause me to.
So ethics be damned, got it.
Did they ever have any?
Win, at any and all cost, irregardless of the destruction left in the wake
You should probably ask the person claiming the Constitution cares whether the Senate holds a hearing or not.
Clearly. But thank you for acknowledging it.
Dude, the melodrama here is off the charts. Civil war? WTF?
This whole seed is an awful lot of crazy over shit not going the way you want it to.
Don't see abortion written in the Constitution, either.
What's your point?
The word "woman" doesn't appear in the original text.
Butt, of course, slavery is endorsed in the Constitution. That's only one reason why the Constitution had to be amended.
We need to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, a Voting Rights Amendment, An Abortion Amendment, and an Election Amendment (to get rid of the Electoral College and get rid of the stupid Citizens United decision).
One of projection, deflection, and denial
Everyone has equal rights, no exception and no amendment needed.
Everyone that is a US citizen has a right to vote. No exceptions.
Only the left wants to get rid of the EC because it does not fit their want for absolute power/
So there, no need for 2 of you wanted amendments and the third would never go through because most Americans believe in the current way of voting, which was meant for a reason.
First, there is no time limit either way of when or how to hold nominating hearings
Second it was "LET'S GO BRANDON" Joe Biden that came up with not having a judicial nomination too close to an election in 1992
Moscow Mitch pretended that Obama's nomination (Merrick Garland) was too close to the election which was ten months away. He refused to have a hearing for Merrick Garland, which was his Constitutional duty to perform. Later McConnell held a hearing for Amy Barrett two weeks before the 2020 election.
In 1992 Joe Biden objected to a Bush nominee DURING the required confirmation hearing in the judiciary committee. That is the purpose of the confirmation hearing. Any Senator can voice their objections. Then the judiciary committee votes on whether to send the nomination to the full Senate (or not).
Joe Biden performed his Constitutional duty. McConnell refused to perform his Constitutional duty.
You keep saying things that aren't true.
but please, go ahead and explain how the Senate violated the Constitution for 130 odd years by not holding judicial confirmation hearings.
@1.2.5
Oops! You better check your history. Bush did not nominate anyone for the Supreme Court in 1992. What part of the Constitutional duty did he perform?
Yeah, I should have checked out YOUR comment (@1.3) when you posted the statement above.
[deleted]
That is the nicest thing I can think of to to say about the most incompetent fool ever to occupy the white house.
[deleted]
You seem very familiar with what Putin wants. Got a Russian hotline?
Extreme comments like that simply discredit the author. Your comment is a credibility destroyer much like 'Trump was the greatest PotUS'.
Other than you, who else cares? I don't!
I never said Trump was the best president ever. That honor still belongs to President Reagan. I have said that Trump was a better president than the current one and that is indisputable.
[deleted]
Yes President Reagan! There have been none better.
I gave an example; I did not suggest that you stated those words. I illustrated why the words you did state are credibility killers.
You have no credibility whatsoever.
Nothing but ignorance and insults.
Like this one:
"Have you been to one?
Oops I forgot who I was replying to. Of course you have never been to one or a abortionists office. No sane man would ever come close enough to you to get you pregnant. Personally I would let it dry up and fall off instead."
I am not the only person reading your extreme claims.
No but you did say that the absolutely, indisputable statement I made about Biden negated my credibility. I find your response does just the opposite.
That was an absolutely, indisputable statement also. Truth hurts don't it
Coming from you that is just another badge of honor to add to my collection.
So? Do you expect me to change my views because you [deleted] My views are accurate and the truth and I will not change them for you or anybody
I expect you to continue to make ridiculous posts.
My comments are factual . Do you consider all of the truth to be ridiculous?
All of your comments lack the integral ingredient known as disinterest to judge.
Your truth is very, very highly flawed.
While Reagan enjoyed a modest "peacetime" economy
he raised taxes quite a bit.
He also started the trend on tripling the National debt and trade deficits.
Oh remember that complicated scheme, guns for drugs, profits to the revolutionaries?
Iran - Contra? He supplied weapons to our enemies and ignored atrocities by Sadam Hussein.
Reagan settled with the Iranian terrorists.
Then after the Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon were bombed
he caved to the terrorists again. Withdrew, never followed up by hunting down the perps.
He won the Cold War and caused the MIC to shrink radically,
raising unemployment.
He illegally supplied weapons to Nicaragua violating a law he himself had signed.
He supplied and supported the Contras attempts to overthrow a democratically elected government with the intention of restoring the previous dictator.
He invaded Grenada as a diversion.
He basically fathered Al-Quaeda.
He supported Apartheid in South Africa.
The corruption of his Administration, Edwin Meese, James Watt and a dozen others
The same shit you accuse Biden of, dementia and repeating bald faced lies already known to be untrue.
Collapse of the savings and Loan industry
Good golly, should I go on?
This is tiring.
He is still better than the others. Who would you say is better? Certainly not Biden, Obama or Clinton.
That is nothing but your opinion.
Why limit yourself to those?
Why exclude Washington, Lincoln or FDR?
Jefferson, Monroe, Jackson or Tyler?
People are tribal, they tend to remember the best about their chosen idols
and ignore the rest.
LOl.
Lol. So taxes were higher than when he was sworn in?
raising unemployment.
Lol.
He basically fathered Al-Quaeda.
Loony tunes.
This is tiring
It sure is... Why post such partisan nonsense?
Lol. And your partisan hot takes are what, exactly?
You still didn't answer.
You mean Nancy was the best president according to you.
That's my favorite part!! I've laughed so hard at some people's ridiculousness that I've actually pulled out my laptop and read those comments to dinner guests. Hilarity ensues.
It is funny (in a pathetic sense) but I am past that point and am simply disgusted at the blind partisan nonsense nowadays. Observing some (many) defend Trump at every turn is surreal.
I thoroughly agree. It's amazing to me. They've sold their souls rather than admit their president is a lying traitorous grifter.
Apt description.
Nancy wasn't president. The best first lady wá Barbara Bush
It's not just laziness. Getting Democrats to unify politically is like herding cats. When Trump was in office, if he made a blunder, which was pretty damned often, Republicans would rally to his defense - he didn't say that, or he didn't mean it, or this is how even though it SEEMS like he said something really stupid, it was really smart, instead, and we should respect POTUS. Dissent from a Republican was rare. It's becoming more common, now that he's out of office, but there is still a substantial faction of the GOP who will defend him, no matter what.
With Biden in office, if there's any criticism thrown toward him, even over things he can't control, Dems don't come to his defense, and some even jump on the bashing bandwagon. Dems eat their own.
Absolutely, democrat political figures need to keep the piglets mouth full of teats, if they can't, the piglets will cut their throat quicker than a New Orleans pimp...
To whom, exactly, are you referring as "piglets"?
Liberal special interest groups...
Conservatives have theirs as well... (remembering Abraham Lincoln's admonishments about the "political piglets and insufficient governmental teats" once he was elected)
Ah, you mean those who would likely be best served by Democrats being elected?
Or Republicans on the other hand... We must remember the political environment is special interest driven in today's world...
What an ignorant thing to say.
That sounds like it might be a real problem for Democrats then.
I see what you mean, though, from looking at the polls lately, even the Democrats think we are headed in the wrong direction.
That may qualify as the understatement of the year.
And even Democrats can be mistaken about who's responsible for that. Some hold Biden responsible for inflation, gas prices, and supply chain issues. The party has a messaging problem. When such false accusations are made, instead of educating, they're silent.
Meanwhile, Republicans rally around Trump when he "corrects" the path of a hurricane with a Sharpie.
One is not like the other.
All sitting Presidents get credit or blame for the economy. I am not saying it is their fault, I am saying what the reality is.
Everyone seems to think that the Democrats have a 'messaging' problem. That is because many voters tend to think Democrats are out of touch.
Well, Trump isn't in office. Perhaps it would serve Democrats better to focus on something else for a minute.
That is true, and the main reason I never claimed they were the same.
one is too lazy
and
one, is becoming a cult classic
INDEED!!!! Hoo boy! That one elicited a good laugh!
I'm aware of the reality. I'm also aware that there can and should be much more education regarding how this actually works.
Possibly, although this is also a messaging problem. Dems don't push back hard enough against lies told about them. "Grooming" children, insistence that the DNC wants to open borders to all, Dems being easy on crime, etc. I remember Virginia's former governor being accused of supporting killing babies, when he didn't say anything of the sort - and it was just sort of a blip, and used to support more lies about Dems.
Ok, so I'm comparing the relative support each has received from his party. You do get that, right? Trump received party support no matter how abysmal his performance, and Biden, well, doesn't.
Maybe, do you think, it's because Democrats believed their leaders when they attack Republican Presidents for those issues and spent 20 years crediting Bill Clinton for the 90s economy?
For instance, in 2018 Chuck Schumer blamed Trump for high gas prices. Did you, loyal Democrat, attack him for lying and misleading voters or rally around him?
Talk is wasted. Can't you see that, dear Sandy? These people will talk "us" to death and eat our supplies while doing so. "Nose to the grinder."
Seems like it only became an issue when Biden took office.
Do you have such a low opinion of the electorate that you don't think they know what they are doing?
Messaging problem? You think that the real problem is messaging, and not Democratic actions and policies? It is just that kind of thinking that led Democrats to their 'messaging' problem.
Maybe, because as polls show, even Democrats think we are headed in the wrong direction.
That sounds like you all should have voted for someone else.
not sure abysmal, can quite cover the magnitude of what the GOP did attempt to cover
up
for the
cover ups, over their heads, sometimes weren't always covers,
covering up their heads were freshly bleached, sheets, N whited out meanly tweets, from small hands in with heavy pants on fire, that a tempted to pull the triggered, and the weak minded daily
I am not a loyal Democrat.
I only blame Presidents for economic problems when they engage in actions that lead to the same. Reagan's tax cuts, for example, and George W. Bush leading us into 2 wars while simultaneously cutting taxes so that those wars were not funded.
I disagreed with Clinton regarding NAFTA.
Trump didn't control OPEC.
Neither does Biden.
Why?
I think that a large number of people are easily led, and don't engage in research or critical thinking.
Tell me, which Democratic policies do you have a problem with? Actual Democratic policies, not things somebody told you were Democratic policies, but aren't.
You're funny Tex. You were one always explaining what Trump really said, and or, never meant, cause Trump Defenders, apparently have not a depth too deep, to dive
Followed by:
Lol. Okay. The economic boom years of the 80s sure were horrible. All that economic growth was devastating.
George W. Bush leading us into 2 wars while simultaneously cutting taxes so that those wars were not funded.
But Joe Biden unfunded spending doesn't cause any problems.
Sure.
[deleted]
You ignored
Why is that, Sean?
Economic boom? Well, that's a bit of a mixed bag, isn't it?
Because he is a Democrat!
Didn't seem to be a problem for Democrats when they win.
Tax more, amnesty for illegals, lax border control.
Whether these are official or not, they are real.
That answer makes no sense.
It is when they display "buyer's remorse" and blame their candidates for issues not under their control.
So, not actual policies, then. Noted.
My answer makes sense if one isn't blind to reality.
Still blaming voters for their personal views and votes. How very Hillary of you.
Democrats actions and lack of actions is what is real, not some talking points about what some Dens want to do.
Vague support for a nonsensical answer.
So what? You think one substantive disagreement with Democrats in 30 years makes a point?
onomic boom? Well, that's a bit of a mixed bag, isn't it?
If your standard is it "failed to create Utopia," sure. Everything can be called a "mixed bag." But you chose an economic boom as an example of "economic problem" caused by a Republican President, which is exactly what the most hardcore of partisans would say.
You basically are arguing that its ignorant to blame Presidents for controlling the economy, unless they are Republicans who are of course to blame for bad things. And even if those bad things are objectively good, we have to call them bad because it involves a Republican.
If you applied the same standard to Biden that you do to Reagan and Bush, then you must blame Biden for the economy under his watch.
My answer made sense. It is a problem for you if you don't understand
You're still ignoring this:
Why is that, Sean? Also, was your list of questions comprehensive enough to cover all points on which I might disagree with Democrats? I rather doubt it.
Straw man.
From my link:
So, we had a short-lived boom, at what cost?
You'll notice that Reagan and Bush actually controlled those policies - the tax cuts were theirs, the war in Iraq was Bush's, based on lies from his administration.
Trump was not in control of oil prices, nor could he have prevented the pandemic (although he damned well could have managed it better). Same as Biden is not in control of oil prices now. Neither Trump nor Biden is responsible for supply chain issues that are a result of the pandemic.
Amazes me people still believe trickle down works...
It works for the people those people care about.
It is always hilarious when people say I do things I don't.
And guess what?
All I have to do is ask you to quote me and POOF! you vanish or deflect!
Quote me!
How is it, that Republicans, with the track record that has PROVEN IT DOES NOT WORK, get so many sheeple to gather the herd and tell them watt was or wasn't said, or even overheard by the herd , mentality absurd, yet still always observed, as their asses perpetuate the though even though it isn't good for me, and i'll vote against my best interests, because i am a small minded entitled and deserved, of all the woe i continually forego, so as the richest amongst US, can further enrich and empower themselves, and i'll even defend them for blatantly LYING to me and you, as they rob from the poorer to enrich the richer, and even though you can pour dry ice from a pitcher, it don't matter, to those who thirst for the rich to get richer, while the back of a throat, is left, to be sliced, and not quenched, can leave US in a pickle, slowly dying, as they await that trickle down my leg economix theory to produce, more than pissed off people
wow Tex, are stating you've NEVER defended or explained what Trump, or others on the 'right' have said or actually meant, when they blurted out or actioned, something that got them in, over their head???
Please take a moment to read my comment.
You seem to have misunderstood it.
Where is the quote to support your claim?
POOF!
Poof! ? There it is
i think the posters can figure out how you attempt to wiggle
fingers in the eyes crossed so you can't see where i'm going with this Tex...?
You made a claim, I asked you to support it, and you failed.
Like I stated--you either vanish or deflect.
This is you deflecting.
Just supply the quote you are so confident you can find easily.
so, for the record, you are stating you've never defended the actions of the Republican GOP party ?
Supply the quote for your claim or just run along now.
i like run along sentences to pace myself with the incongruent lines i can never remember to look up things, not remembered, because i may have forgot to remember them, but if you remember to never forget to remember, haven't you forgotten the forgotten or dismembered the memory not remembered because you didn't forget to forget and forgive me Tex, but i will provide you with my thoughts of your consistent and persistent impression you impact with those typed words voiced to promote a particular ideology that i won't prescribe to, without a Dr's note: You can make a much bigger and deeper impression, on softer grounds
Amen sister.
word salad does not erase the fact you claimed something you can't back up.
when people continually do that to me, and try to deflect, i lose interest in most of what they have to say.
Gee, who is responsible for messaging?
Dems are seen as out of touch because of their actual words and deeds, not some lies.
Take the use of the word "Latinx". Latinos largely disfavor the term, but idiots like AOC insist on using it. Tone deaf to the very people she claims to want to help and represent.
"Defund the police" was the rage and now even Democrats have slowly, begrudgingly recognized that dismal failure.
Insistence the border is closed while record numbers come across, many illegally. About a million aliens released into the US so far by Biden's team of experts.
"Inflation is temporary" rhetoric from the WH is for damn sure a 'messaging problem' but one that was self-inflicted.
I guess we should all applaud those Democrats who can recognize what a disaster Biden is and his Administration is.
"Defund the police" is a messaging problem. Most people agree with what "defund the police" means in most places, which is using diverting law enforcement funding to mental health/social workers in order to handle those who are mentally ill rather than intentionally criminal. The slogan is stupid as hell, but the concept is not.
Which is not something I've heard many Dems say.
Dems. You DO realize I've been offering a criticism of Democrats here, yes? I mean, most people seemed to get it right from the first comment.
Which Democrats have advocated "defunding the police" or "open borders"?
Joe Biden certainly opposed both concepts.
So why do Democrats continue to shoot themselves in the feet with silly slogans?
And why have so many Democratic-run cities adding money back into their police budgets?
White House says 'border is closed' after 50 dead …
7 hours ago · White House insists ‘ border is closed’ after 50 migrants found dead in truck. The Biden administration declined to directly respond Tuesday to Texas Republican Gov. …
May not be many, but when the leader of your party says it, it should count for something.
Texan, you and Abbott DO realize that if open borders were a policy, nobody would need to sneak in, yes?
I disagree that the border is closed, but that's because an airtight border is pretty near impossible.
Many of your words illustrate my point - Dems are less politically monolithic than Republicans.
Stick with me, I don't speak for Abbott.
The border may not technically be wide open, but the numbers coming across are definitely increasing no matter what source you use to verify it. The HUGE numbers of aliens released into the interior also says that the border is not secure--get here and stay here seems to be the underlying message coming from the Biden Administration.
The Biden Administration and VP Harris have made a bigger mess of things on the border.
While many Democrats hide behind trifling technicalities to hide their own ineptness and denials.
Your kidding right? Have you even seen the news about the border?
You posted a link to his words because you disagree with them?
Ok.
You would do well to note the article ALSO says that Biden said the border is closed. You know, to show you that YES, Democrats ARE claiming the border is closed despite you not hearing of such things.
Surely the weight of the words emanating from the POTUS carries a tad more weight than if a lesser Democrat uttered them?
You would do well to read what I typed.
I do believe the LEADER of the Democratic Party saying it is worth at least a million Democrats saying it.
Spin away, Texan.
"One" does not equal "many".
Seems like you are implying the words of your President don't mean much.
I'm saying I know English.
Biden of course, invited illegals to surge the border.
He promised free health care.
He promised to stop deportations.
He done everything he can to ensure to lure aliens to sneak across the across the border, promising to reward them with benefits, safety from deportation and am eventual amnesty.
Super!
Then you will be able to tell immediately I didn't say you said that, but implied it, and you know the difference!
That is true, but not everyone can see it.
Record numbers and some still like to pretend Biden is tough on border security!
Have you figured out yet whether "one" is "many"?
Or are you still just arguing to argue?
Inane.
Are you actually suggesting that we have an "open border"?
That's fucking delusional
Refugees and Asylum Seekers
How many refugees enter the United States each year, and where were they from?
Due to the limited capacity of the resettlement program and COVID-19-related logistic challenges, only 11,411 refugees were resettled in the United States in FY 2021, amounting to 18 percent of the 62,500 allocated spaces for the year. By the end of February 2022, nearly 6,500 refugees arrived in the United States, out of the 125,000 allowed for FY 2022.
What is the asylum approval rate?
According to preliminary USCIS data, 28 percent of affirmative asylum petitions completed in FY 2021 were approved, similar to the 27 percent approval rate in FY 2020 and a slight decrease from the 31 percent in FY 2019 and 30 percent in FY 2018.
Immigration Enforcement
How many times are unauthorized immigrants stopped at the border each year?
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reported nearly 1.8 million enforcement encounters at both the southern and northern borders in FY 2021, a major increase from 490,000 a year earlier, when the pandemic suppressed movement around the world. The vast majority of these FY 2021 encounters (1.7 million) were at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Enforcement encounters at the Southwest border increased significantly starting in March 2021, in response to factors including the change in presidential administrations and uneven economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The 1.7 million encounters at the Southwest border in FY 2021 was a record high, well more than triple the 458,000 encounters in FY 2020 and 77 percent higher than the 978,000 in FY 2019.
I encourage you to go to the above source. It contains a plethora of detailed information about the border. It is NOT an open border. To suggest that Biden advocates "open borders" is absolutely idiotic.
Did you see this sentence?
The 1.7 million encounters at the Southwest border in FY 2021 was a record high, well more than triple the 458,000 encounters in FY 2020 and 77 percent higher than the 978,000 in FY 2019.
Arguing to be arguing, it is, then.
[deleted]
Who are you talking to? I really resent that.
[deleted]
That's what happens when you run and elect somebody as incompetent as Biden. With somebody that bad, there is no way you can expect everybody to keep up the façade that he was a good choice for any extended period of time. No matter how many times you polish it, it's still a turd.
To my knowledge, he has yet to suggest injecting disinfectant or changed a weather map with a Sharpie, both of which were defended when the last guy did them. Talk about defending the indefensible.
Biden has shown that he doesn't know what any of that is.
We are talking about somebody how has already voted in the same direction as the SCOTUS opinion on Roe vs. Wade. Somebody who has seems to have lost his grasp on the English language. You know, the thing.
You're just posting Pee Wee Hermanesque insults at this point. I gave concrete examples of Trump's incompetence, and the best you can do is "Well, Biden is worse, so there!"
As I have done with Biden.
I'm not the one with my hair on fire over somebody who isn't in office any longer.
I'm referring to what is going on NOW. While you seem to be suck in the past. [deleted]
I will support girls and women. Why? Because as a matter of principal, liars, cheaters, and thieves should not be allowed to exist. Those conservative judges sat on their asses and lied. We all knew in our inner being they were probably lying and now we have the proof in this. But enough about them.
Did I hear some states are asking for the removal of contraceptives from a girl's woman's ability to stop a pregnancy? Or some such thing?
And what is this about a girl or woman not being allowed to go out of state to get an abortion without facing "suspicion" and a 'case' when she returns to her home state? Isn't that reminiscent of slave codes where slaves fleeing to free states were to be located and returned by force to their masters in slave states?
While I agree with the general sentiment of that comment, I could never support it as a reality.
As is sometimes said, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."
We were looking at our punking in real-time and were stuck, "check-mated," and I am going to use a bad term here so y'all forgive me. We got 'caught holding our 'ds' in our hands by the federalist society who played the game. That is, go to Congress: Sit/laugh/smile/massage/"adore"/emote/feign/cajole/ but don't tell them a damn meaningful thing about who you really are in your heart.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Yes it is a good disinfectant. However, I can recall some coming here and telling us about 'faking it until you make it.' That is, lie-until you get what you want out of your frenemy/enemy and then when he turns his back—of if he/she does not turn-stab them in the heart as deep as you can as if your very existence depends on it.
Some of us can't fight the system alone, we need numbers, we need quality/supporters. We're losing, because there is too much talking (and the effect is 'vaporous'). Though, we still need to unload from time to time, and I get that.
(Yeah, this one may ramble a bit, but I think the gist can be pulled out.)
Yes, a bit of hyperbole on the existence or lack thereof of liars, cheaters, and thieves. I am talking about vicious and persistent offenders, anyways.
Ooooo... I got a collapse thread vote... What did I do wrong?
That's a feature, not a bug, and it's actually a compliment to your article. It now has threads that have enough comments that the system hides them ("collapses the thread") to aid loading speed. They can easily be unhidden ("expanding the thread") so that they can be read.
...it's actually a compliment to your article
Woo Hooo!!! Mal does the Malamute happy dance...
While I do return to NT from time to time... Thank you dear friend, Perrie for creating this site! Every time I do, I get very discouraged by the unrelenting acrimony. I make no bones about the fact that I am an unrepentant liberal... But I long for the good old days on the Vine... before the trolls invaded... when people with differing ideologies could have reasonable discussions... making genuine efforts to see things from the viewpoints that differ from their own. Sigh... I wonder if I will ever see that again...
Me too, probably not in our lifetimes...
I do too. But what can you do? You got Trump telling conservatives to never concede, never give up, and true to form Donald is told he is a liar and he is an unrepentant gasbag that persists in driving his followers deeper into the abyss of lying, deceit, and threat to liberty for all. We have no choice but to fight if people won't stop hurling at us.
I would like to see the acrimony end, and it likely will-abruptly and without notice.
In the meantime, while you are away, somebody has to stand in the gap to keep this place open and not walled off and "entrenched." I, too, was on the other site you mentioned for years and it overwhelmed the senses of a great number of moderators. . . and as you can see. . . the struggle yet continues. Conservatives do not want liberals to be free (of them and their controls'). I could have been a conservative, due to my Christian moral stances, but I know better than to turn against letting people live out their own dreams and aspirations just to suit my own. Liberals are not a threat to conservatives. It is the other way around.
(I am rambling again.)
And thank you very much for that!!!
I know that came off as arrogant on my part, but humbly what can I, we, do? You never know what you will wake up to in our dynamic society! Liberty, freedom is hard work!
Why wait until November?
I'm not sure this is fair. Turnout in the closely contested swing states was higher than the national average. The national average turnout was 60.1%. The closely contested states saw turnouts of Florida 65.6%, North Carolina 64.5%, Pennsylvania 61.2%, Michigan 65.7%, and Wisconsin 68.3%.
Of the closely contested states, only Arizona was below the national average at 56.1%, and that actually wasn't all that close, as Trump won the state by about 5 points.
I think it's probably more valid to criticize Hillary herself, who not only campaigned at a pretty lazy pace (often not campaigning at all for days), but basically blew off the entire upper midwest entirely.
You can also blame that moron James Comey and his cryptic announcement about Clinton's emails. He couldn't yet say if they were even going to be significant, but he had to inject himself into the nation's attention anyway.
I said during the campaign that she was the worst choice they could have made. Fairly or not the damage to her reputation had be done by years of attacks from the GOP and that made her the only candidate as unpopular as Trump himself. Why in the fuck you would look at that situation and be like "yup, gotta go with the one who people dislike the most to throw against this guy" is beyond me.
Exactly right. Polls showed she was the most unliked candidate in the history of presidential elections - except for Trump, of course. If the party had nominated virtually anyone else, they probably would have won.
Another factor is that the Ds probably were not so concerned with Hillary getting the nomination given she was likely to run against Trump. Regardless, the Ds (and of course the Rs) dropped the ball in the 2016 election and, with a timely assist from Comey, gave Trump the opportunity to assume and defile the office of the PotUS.
Actually polls showed that Trump was more trusted to be president than Hillary was just days before the election
Hence my point and my criticism of the Democrats prior to the election. When she was the nominee I said they fucked up, said it throughout the campaign, and have been validated ever since.
Of course the D's weren't concerned, the fix was in and it was Hillary's turn don't cha know, which gave the D's in open primary states the chance to mess with the R's by switching to the R ballot and casting a vote for the easiest candidate that Hillary could beat, Trump, because of that it wasn't actually the R's that dropped the ball. Comey was actually helping Hillary, do you think that one of the smartest men, the head of the F B I, and the smartest woman in the world couldn't figure out a way to avoid the investigation and possible impeachment when the FBI found emails on a sexual predators laptop before the election?
The Rs dropped the ball by nominating Trump.
There is the possibility that if the D's didn't switch to the R's in the open state primaries, Trump may not have won the nomination or at least it could've been contested.
In the primaries of the 2020 election, I decided to switch to the D's ballot and voted for Bernie to try a get a contested convention for the D's, told as many people I could to do the same, because Trump had the R's nomination already, most couldn't do it it just seemed to underhanded and unethical to mess with the other parties election like that, which I had to remind them when the D's have the chance they do just that.
Trusted ≠ Liked.
But as for trust, Comey’s October surprise appears to have done a lot to hurt Clinton’s reputation.
Nonsense.
Denying that Comey had nothing to do with Hillary’s loss is laughable.
Thinking Comey influenced the election is sheer stupidity.
A witless simplistic retort that denies the obvious.
You are stating that Comey's revelation had NO influence on the election.
It is not possible to prove this one way or another but for you to state NO influence is beyond naive.
What Comey did for Hillary was a calculated risk, because it had to be done to save Hillary's presidency. Sure it had a little effect on the election, but did Comey once say that Hillary should have won by 100 million to none.
Wow, talk about holding a double standard!
You can claim he had influence but I can't claim he had none.
Neither one of us has any evidence--according to your own words, but only MY assertion is deemed wrong.
Makes as much sense as thinking that people hadn't made up their minds one way or another about Trump and Hillary as late as October 28, 2016, which is ludicrous.
And why would Comey announcing the emails found on Weiner's laptop be such an influence when 10 days later he stated publicly Hillary would not face any criminal charges, clearing her would not be influencing?
Seriously?
You don't think people had their minds already made up?
You think Comey announcing the discovery of Clinton emails on Weiner's laptop influenced people's opinions of Hillary?
Do you think his exoneration of her did not influence anyone?
Breaking things down to simplistic levels:
Of those three possibilities, my position (and one commonly held by thinking adults) is that Comey's timely reveal influenced voters — between the extremes. It takes no special knowledge or intelligence to see that it would be next to impossible for such a reveal to not influence voters.
Your position, however, is one of the extremes. You claim NO influence. The other extreme, by the way, is COMPLETE influence.
You hold an extreme position (the NONE extreme) whereas I offer basic common sense.
I suspect that you cannot conceive of people on the fence because as a partisan you would never consider any D. There are, however, people across the spectrum and that includes the gray area where the choice is not so clear.
Given the choice was the lesser of two evils, most people can tap into common sense and realize that a number of non-partisans could easily be influenced by significant current events. I suspect many were simply looking for a clear reason to feel comfortable voting for one crappy candidate vs. the other.
You offer spin.
Congrats.
Assuming that the election turned on Comey is silliness in itself.
Ignoring the fact that Comey cleared Hillary is also convenient to your argument.
I don't believe that Comey had ZERO influence, I believe his tiny bit of influence was not enough to swing the election.
I have to believe that Team Hillary would have to agree with me based on the number of excuses she has given since her tragic loss.
So how then do you have the temerity to deem it stupidity to hold that Comey's surprise had an influence on the voters?
You admit to the obvious (that his surprise necessarily had an influence — and one that we cannot accurately measure) and merely claim that you do not believe it turned the election.l
Fine. You are welcome to your belief. But it is clearly not stupidity to hold that this influence could have contributed to Trump's win.
Note what you wrote:
Jeeze, I KNOW wtf I wrote, don't be so fucking condescending again.
I do not think that Comey influenced enough voters to make a difference at that late stage. And if one assumes his announcement DID influence enough voters to make a real difference, how does his exoneration of her have no effect?
You don't get to pretend that Comey's actions ONLY worked in one set way to bolster your weak argument.
And I know you equivocated.
The timing of his announcement put renewed doubt in her integrity. The reveal of no new evidence from Weiner's laptop (which was NOT an exoneration) came late (on Nov 6) and it is not clear if this hurt or helped:
You should read the article for the above quote [ ]. It offers a calm (not extreme) analysis similar to what I offered but in much more detail.
When you announce that a person will not be charged criminally, you are in effect exonerating her, and I don't give a damn about how much spin you can throw at that fact.
Assuming that enough voters were undecided by that point in time is assuming facts not in evidence. With the amount of media coverage for the campaigns, it is unreasonable to assume that enough voters were undecided at that point to swing the election.
And why would Clinton give a veritable litany of excuses as to why she lost--most of which had nothing to do with Comey if she thought he was the deciding factor in the election?
Why is it unreasonable? What facts do you have to support your hypothesis that on a very close election (and that we know) that the votes were sufficiently decided prior to Oct 28 so that any news hence would not be enough to influence the outcome?
Note, I do not claim that Comey NECESSARILY caused Trump to win but that Comey's reveal influenced voters against Hillary.
Probably because Comey's reveal is one of many factors. So imagine that there are five factors contributing to her loss. If one of those factors did not occur, she might have won. Comey's reveal does not have to be the sole factor for it to influence a close election.
Bottom line, it is laughable to dismiss Comey's reveal as influencing voters against Clinton. While nobody can measure if Clinton would have won without it, the evidence (see the article I linked) makes a decent case that Comey's reveal cannot be ignored.
I already addressed that.
A year of campaigning, non-stop news coverage of both campaigns, Hillary being a very public figure already well-known to the American public, past investigations into Clinton dealings, her personal public persona not very well received by many Americans, her failed run in 2008, her admittedly shoddy handling of her own emails, Comey clearing Hillary, with the blessing of the person who SHOULD have been making the decision had she not met secretly with Hillary's husband, etc.
🖕
Prior to the Comey announcement, the email situation was under control. When Comey's letter hit on Oct 28th, this scandalous issue became again front and center. Timing is everything in these elections.
Dismissing late-in-the-campaign top news items as irrelevant is naive.
As naive as dismissing late-in-the-campaign exonerations?
You should eat more, you seem a little on the thin side!
Your tiny hand is even smaller than The Donald's.
I think your shoe size also gives you away.
The second clue is in that drawer...
As explained (and ignored by you), Comey did not exonerate Clinton. He announced two days before the election that the Weiner investigation found no new evidence against Clinton.
Not only does this fail to exonerate her from the email scandal, it renewed in the public mind the connection of Clinton to the scandal. So instead of helping, this actually could have caused even more harm.
No way to measure this, but for you to deem this exoneration is logically unsound and for you to think this would necessarily erase the effects of the Comey letter is naive.
I will accept that you are an expert on Trump in light of your overwhelming obsession with him, but you don't know squat about me.
I often wonder if some liberals here can converse without somehow dragging dicks or Trump into the conversation.
I see scant evidence of it thus far.
I ignored nothing, stop LYING.
I told you that Comey said no charges would be filed against Clinton. That is basically exonerating her no matter how many words you use to spin it.
Which ALSO means no charges would be filed.
He just got back from swimming in the pool and the water was really cold.
I think some folks here are obsessed with dick.
You've got that right, and it's usually those that claim to be open minded, lol.
Since another word for dick, would be Trump, so i guess, for a change, i'll agree.
Exactly, you reinforce Texan’s point.
dick/Trump
Obsession/infatuation
The "scant" evidence was provided by YOU in comment 6.2.28
wow, did you just figure out that i think Trump is a DICK, congratulations. Know what else i think, most Trump defenders and deniers' are Trumps'
[deleted]
Would another language be better for you?
Your comment 6.2.8 doesn't have any text.
It's just an image of a tiny hand flipping me off.
And, speaking of flipping, flip back through this thread. Up until now, I haven't mentioned anyone's penis.
You said in 6.2.36
"I often wonder if some liberals here can converse without somehow dragging dicks or Trump into the conversation."
OMG.
This having to explain things to you in such fine detail is exhausting!
You commented thusly:
To which I replied:
Then you:
[deleted]
Now, in Liberal La La Land, how and why are MY comments supposed to support your dumbfuck comments?
[deleted]
There are always people who can have their minds changed.
Available data appears to indicate that it did.
My Mother won't say who she voted for, lol, but had quite the arguments
with her sisters about Comey/Clinton and the emails and they ended up
voting for Trump in PA.
It was definitely a factor, those octogenarians were died in the wool
straight party Democratic voters.
It is simply unbelievable to me that Comey had that much effect on the election.
Funny, it seems people only think he had a negative effect on Hillary's campaign, completely ignoring he exonerated her and charged her with absolutely nothing.
Maybe Trump would have won by a larger margin had Comey not exonerated her.
Very good.
Did you understand what that means?
I know it doesn't contain any words.
No one claimed ever that it did, so what exactly are you arguing?
In comment 6.2.36 you said:
"I often wonder if some liberals here can converse without somehow dragging dicks or Trump into the conversation."
By that logic, YOU are a liberal who is "dragging dicks or Trump into the conversation."
You dragged dicks into the conversation.
I merely made an observation about the tiny hand that you posted in comment.
It reminded me of Trump's tiny hands except what you posted was a micro-hand.
I never mentioned Trumps nor YOUR penis.
I guess that's another reason you like to swim in that Egyptian River.
I never encountered anyone who gets is so defensive and seems so sensitive.
I hope I'm not damaging your male ego; it's just a little observation.
Jesus, do you not see the thread is still there for all to see?
Posts 6.2.33 and 6.2.34 are there.
Please don't tell me I gave you too much credit in assuming you two had at least some little inkling of what you were doing by posting those two posts.
Don't bother boring me with such obtuseness.
Then explain your hysterical overreaction to something so small, so infinitesimal, so tiny?
I don't like it when people lie about me.
It wasn't a whopper. Maybe a teensy white lie!
A microaggression of minuscule consequence.
Yes, I posted 6.2.33 butt I did NOT post 6.2.34 butt thanx for including that link for the people playing the home edition of this game.
I'm proud of you for continuing to defend your "manhood".
Is there some sort of problem in that area?
Why are you so defensive?
Is it a tiny bit embarrassing?
I'm sure Jesus loves this thread.
Late to the party, but it wasn't even a teensy lie.
"Clinton led in almost every nationwide and swing-state poll, with some predictive models giving Clinton over a 90 percent chance of winning. On Election Day, Trump over-performed his polls, winning several key swing-states, while losing the popular vote by 2.87 million votes."
Cite
He was a loser then just as he is now. Loser. His fuckin' ego fucked him over. He could have walked away with a peaceful transition of power and had some dignity and at least some legacy. Now everyone knows the disgusting traitorous emperor has no clothes. He hated the Electoral College til he won it.
[Deleted]
You need to realize, Comey was backed against the wall with those emails on Weiner's laptop, they were found in September or late August, if he did nothing about them and after Hillary's election it came out that the FBI knew of them BEFORE the election not only would the FBI be under investigation but also his candidate Hillary could face impeachment from an unfriendly Congress, so he did the smart thing and brought it out before the election, but so late as to limit the damage and save Hillary's presidency. After all he came back with the FBI, which he ran, exonerating her after investigating the emails giving the Congress nothing to go with to impeach president Hillary.
I blame him entirely.
I said it at the time and I've been saying it since, the Dems fucked up big time when they nominated Hillary. I don't personally think she is that bad, in fact she is fairly moderate, but she had been attacked by republicans for decades and public opinion of her was low. She was literally the only democratic candidate who was as disliked as Trump, and the Dems decided to hitch their wagon to that horse. I said the entire time their best bet was Bernie, even if they didn't totally agree with him he was campaigning on the same populist message as Trump and was/is liked more than Trump. That mistake is looking fucking huge now isn't it?
he time and I've been saying it since, the Dems fucked up big time when they nominated Hillary.
Why they cleared the field for her is beyond me. She, by a significant margin, gave Republicans the best chance to win. She even got the candidate she wanted in the general and still lost.
For all his wackiness, even Sanders would probably have beaten Trump due to his anti-establishment credentials.
We are in 100% agreement for possibly the first, and only, time ever.
I mean, why in the fuck would you look at Trump's popularity (at the time in the high 30 to low 40s) and say "fuck, who do we have in that ballpark? WHO?! oh Hillary, fuck yeah let's send her in and really make this a close game to watch!"
Fucking dems, good at governing but absolute shit at politics.
She also thought she was a dead lock to win and didn't bother to do any of the work. That just made her look pompous and entitled.
Again, worst person they could have gone with. Again, I am not knocking her personally, personally I have nothing against her really. Just the decision to nominate her was terrible and has serious consequences years down the road.
as an eternal optimist, I know sanity will eventually reign and this SCOTUS decision will probably be corrected by the legislative branch. in the meantime, I'm excited because I know that bible thumpers will be the ones paying the price for this judicial over reach by some unamerican theocrats while they have a temporary seat on the bench. taking rights away from americans with any type of bogus religious logic won't fly for long.
At some point in this discussion y'all, we, are going to have to accept that prolifers and their defending "busybodies" have heard all the arguments and have been waiting 50 (damn) years to stick it to girls and women again. Remember, they put laws on the books (or never took them off) as place-holders in wait and expectation of liberal judges falling away through retirement or death. It is how some conservatives' modus operandi to lay 'packages' along the trail to the future. Case in point: Clarence Thomas has signaled "his" court minus the Chief Justice even, is willing, able, and willing to pull the plug on past justices who are dead.
This kind of thinking did not just come up. It has been in planning. Lying in wait. For such a time as now.
That a bunch of tired ass conservative judges can look you in the eye, wink and smile, as they tell you justice and injustice don't matter - if a state majority wants you to experience it. Tells you something. This: Stop trying to reason with fools. Take their butts to task for the tong-term. Set your firm resolve in the manner they have set their resolve.
And go vote this November from top to bottom for your rights and privileges as a female; and, homosexual.
Trump conservatives don't give a damn about you, me, and our liberal ideas about justice, peace, and unity.
Donald Trump actually wants to be known in history (and history damn sure won't forget him for this -because he has outdone himself this time) as the president who 'broke' the Supreme Court in the 21st century and proved beyond a shadow of doubt that liberty and justice don't mean a damn thing if you get people bandied together to ram a whole lot of injustice down every orifice available.
Trump is actually gloating about how he kept his promise to break the federal system for girls and women. Queens and 'Trans' and all the other "out of their boxers" - get ready. You're up next!
Vote like your liberal lives and your children liberal lives depend on it this November 2022.
The 2022 MIDTERM CAMPAIGNS ON NT ARE OPEN!
Cancer patients who are women are put in the absolute worst position imaginable. Regardless of their politics, if they find out they are pregnant, then they cannot receive chemotherapy or other cancer treatments.
Women with cancer will die or face the choice they would need to make only to be unable to make that choice.
Doctors will have to send female cancer patients to other states for an abortion in order to continue treatment.
Or the mother has to face dying with cancer while pregnant and no treatment, endangering both mother and baby. Some cases both will die.
What do all the right wingers who post "Kick Cancer" memes have to say about this very real issue? Most right wing extremists have passed bills denying abortion to save the life of the mother.
Women will die regardless. The Pro Wire Hanger party will have blood on their hands and in their hearts. Abortion is not going to stop.