The Next President is...

[Biff_T]

12 hours ago, Negatory said:

Go ahead and explain why does it affect your poor Christian, Muslim, Church of Satan or Jewish family if another family that you have never interacted with gets an abortion 2 cities over

Added a few more religions, just for fun.  Not everyone worships Jesus.

12 hours ago, Negatory said:

, and is it really a states right thing? Or is it an overreaching control over everyone thing? Why is Texas trying to inhibit the ability for federal citizens to go to states that align with their views to enjoy the freedoms of those states?

Texas shouldn't be allowed to tell its citizens anything, lol. 

But seriously, states shouldn't be allowed to tell their citizens where they can go.  That's insanity. 

Abortion is as American as apple pie, it isn't going anywhere, ever.  Let the states decide.   

States rights!  This is a way to get the Federal government off of the abortion train.  Just like weed but with less fun talking points.  

 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Biff_T
Spelling bee failure

[ViperMan]

12 hours ago, Negatory said:

Oh, a brain dead take on political issues on base ops. Who would have guessed.

You saying this unironically is peak you.

Overturning Roe was a good thing, though it may have bought some R losses for a while, it was a shitty legal fiction that needed to go, and it's after-effects will subside in time. You are right about one thing, though, most Americans agree that there should be some restrictions on abortion. You construing this as being anti-republican, however, is confusing. If most people are ok with some abortion but not unrestricted, then why is it still such an issue for the left? I'm not sure your characterization that the left doesn't want abortion on demand is actually true. Most on the left use such notions as "life of the mother", rape, incest, etc (i.e. some other extreme justification) to serve as the justification when the know good and well that it's really about getting it approved because they consider it a family planning tool - which is the justification you quoted in your post. So sure, there's some elections to be lost for a while. I'm fine with that. This is merely the first step in getting back to a rational basis for abortion. The next step is defining the issue more clearly so it rules out the real crime, which is abortion "because I want one."

The "life of the mother" trope is precisely that: a trope. It was never illegal in this country for a woman to get an abortion if her life was in danger. Don't take my word for it, though, here's the Texas law that Roe overturned (https://www.sll.texas.gov/assets/pdf/historical-statutes/1925/1925-3-penal-code-of-the-state-of-texas.pdf#page=278). Read it yourself if you don't believe me, but it's your side that has been propagandized and spouts non-starters as if they're informed on the issue or historical context. In reality, your lack of SA is on blast.

So yeah, the left wants abortion because they believe it's a family planning tool, or a "bodily autonomy" issue, or some other such nonsense, but they use the above tropes as emotional wedges because it's easier to sell it that way. You know that and so does everyone else. So let's not avoid the issue by saying it's all about the "health of the mother" because it isn't, and it never was. Eliminating abortion at any point for frivolous reasons is what this is all about and most Americans agree that it shouldn't be used as birth control. That's all I get from the poll you posted.

[Lord Ratner]

13 hours ago, Negatory said:

Oh, a brain dead take on political issues on base ops. Who would have guessed.

You (specifically) can’t help but make false equivalencies and invalid broad generalizations, which you demonstrate literally every single day you post here.

The truth is that Americans support way more nuance in this discussion than your backwards reductionist views. The majority of Americans do not support abortion past 24 weeks. Only 19% of Americans believe abortion should be legal with no strings attached. Oh that’s against the narrative you’re stating?

Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/

A lot of people think that it should be allowed in extreme cases beyond an arbitrary time stamp (guaranteed non viability, extremely high risk of death, fetus is almost guaranteed dead). This is not the same as when you try to insinuate democrats support anyone - for any reason as flippant as they just don’t feel like it - should be able to get a third trimester abortion. THATS AN EXTREME VIEW DEMOCRATS DONT EVEN SUPPORT. But it’s in talk radio. You’ve been propagandized. You have to know this, right? But I guess you couldn’t win this argument without bending reality or convincing yourself of some slightly flawed logic.

Finally, you guys are wrong about the potential of this to be perceived as just a states rights issue. This is a big deal. To the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, this was a fundamental attack on Women’s and men’s rights to plan their families. That’s how the majority of Americans (and a supermajority of Democrats) feel, and the longer you try to pretend it’s just a legal battle or was justified via some federalist debate, the longer you lose. Just telling you the truth. Here’s a graph showing how republicans are actively losing the support of independents across the country. 57 to 41, that’s not even close.

 

Now that we’ve had a good time debunking the logical basis of your arguments, let’s go to the emotional way you’re losing this debate (and with it, the American people’s support):

Go ahead and explain why does it affect your poor Christian family if another family that you have never interacted with gets an abortion 2 cities over? Get out of people’s lives. Also, are you suddenly okay with it if it’s just across state borders? Choose a side. If you’re gonna play the pathos argument and then go straight to a legal logos you just sound disingenuous. Which you are. But you sound like it, too.

Oh, and is it really a states right thing? Or is it an overreaching control over everyone thing? Why is Texas trying to inhibit the ability for federal citizens to go to states that align with their views to enjoy the freedoms of those states?

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/wireStory/west-texas-county-bans-travel-roads-seeking-abortion-104256476

Shit like that is what Republicans laugh about. It’s what the rest of Americans are terrified of. That’s a disadvantage for y’all, sorry.

I know what Americans think. Are you implying that the Democratic Party supports abortion bans at a certain point? Or is the official position of the Democratic party that there should be no restrictions on abortion?

 

Regardless, abortion is so far down the list of priorities, and always has been, it's hilarious that people still think Americans are going to pick the president on this issue. They aren't.

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

 

Just because people have an opinion doesn't mean they care. And they really don't care when it doesn't even affect them. You think a liberal in a state with abortion access is going to pick who they vote for based on what other people in other states do or don't have? Nonsense.

 

Everyone is looking for some excuse for why Republicans are doing so poorly, some issue or singular mistake. The party is in a transition and is splitting into two parties, neocons and populists. They don't agree on much and as such take no real stance as a party and pick shitty candidates that represent nothing. Politics in it's truest form. The Democrats would be in the same boat if progressivism wasn't so spectacularly distasteful that it can't get more than 9-10% of the population to support it.

 

But the people still going on about abortion aren't even following the logic through. Once every state has voted and decided what their abortion policy will be, exactly who is going to carry the torch? If abortion is so popular, then nearly every state will pass a law protecting it. Then... What? The country is going to pick the president based on abortion access in 4 or 5 deep red states? Right.

 

And if some states ban it and some states protect it, then it wasn't the slam dunk issue liberals said it was. Hell, that's why they wanted Roe so badly. They knew a voter-driven law would result in more restrictions.

 

So much reluctance to let the people decide for themselves. I'm sure a lot of Republicans are disappointed with what happened in Ohio, but some of us are quite pleased with it, not because I like abortion or believe it should be legal, but because I believe it was always for the voters to decide. And they have.

[HeloDude]

 

14 hours ago, Negatory said:

Oh, a brain dead take on political issues on base ops. Who would have guessed.

You (specifically) can’t help but make false equivalencies and invalid broad generalizations, which you demonstrate literally every single day you post here.

A few simple questions if you want to have an honest debate:

1) At what point in a pregnancy do you personally think it should be illegal to terminate a pregnancy if the mother is not at a health risk (physically) to continue her pregnancy?

2) Similar to the question above, at what point in a woman’s pregnancy do Democrats on a national stage want to ban abortions?  And can you provide a source for your response?

3) Why aren’t Democrats as supportive of organizations that try to convince women to not have an abortion and assist were her pregnancy as they are with organizations that support/perform abortions?

[ClearedHot]

Trump hints at expanded role for the military within the US. A legacy law gives him few guardrails

So much NO here...

[Biff_T]

On 11/9/2023 at 6:05 PM, HeloDude said:

Why aren’t Democrats as supportive of organizations that try to convince women to not have an abortion and assist were her pregnancy as they are with organizations that support/perform abortions?

Because that's not evil enough.  I can't understand the constant need to passionately argue for abortions of convenience.   Its almost like you're not "cool" unless you get one.   There is no justice for the unborn, unless it's an animal.  

 

52 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Trump hints at expanded role for the military within the US. A legacy law gives him few guardrails

So much NO here...

That'd be a big mistake. 

[tac airlifter]

6 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Trump hints at expanded role for the military within the US. A legacy law gives him few guardrails

So much NO here...

I'm not sure what you're saying "no" to since Trump gave no specifics; his manner of communication seems to be tossing out vague ideas and seeing how they play publicly.  I don't necessarily like it, but it's better than whatever Biden is doing by operating in an echo chamber.
 

Had I been POTUS (good thing I'm not) I would not have allowed WA to dither for weeks while CHAZ/CHOP stole territory, set up borders, and inflicted misery on citizens of that state.  I haven't thought through specifically what I would've done, but certainly using the military in some capacity would've been on the table.

The fundamental question is this: when elected state or city leadership completely fails their citizens, what is the national government to do?  One could argue nothing since citizens voted those elected leaders into office, but one could also argue that outright insurrection is a federal crime and enforcement supersedes state authorities.  Not being a lawyer I don't know what the right answer is, but ruling out potential COAs before they've been fleshed out seems like a recipe for more losing. Something our military leadership is unfortunately quite adept at.

[ClearedHot]

2 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

I'm not sure what you're saying "no" to since Trump gave no specifics; his manner of communication seems to be tossing out vague ideas and seeing how they play publicly.  I don't necessarily like it, but it's better than whatever Biden is doing by operating in an echo chamber.

Hinting at employing the military implies some sort of martial law...seriously bro, that is ungood.

2 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Had I been POTUS (good thing I'm not) I would not have allowed WA to dither for weeks while CHAZ/CHOP stole territory, set up borders, and inflicted misery on citizens of that state.  I haven't thought through specifically what I would've done, but certainly using the military in some capacity would've been on the table.

I agree the optic of allowing the riots go on and federal property to be attacked and burned is very bad.  That being said, there were more than enough federal assets to employ without rolling in the military. 

 

2 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

The fundamental question is this: when elected state or city leadership completely fails their citizens, what is the national government to do?  One could argue nothing since citizens voted those elected leaders into office, but one could also argue that outright insurrection is a federal crime and enforcement supersedes state authorities.  Not being a lawyer I don't know what the right answer is, but ruling out potential COAs before they've been fleshed out seems like a recipe for more losing. Something our military leadership is unfortunately quite adept at.

The federal government certainly has a responsibility to protect the citizens and federal property but even hinting at employing the military is 3rd world banana republic type stuff.  If they didn't have enough Marshalls, FBI, ATF and other federal officers perhaps they could use the Guard under Title 32 but even hinting at the active duty military is complete and utter non-sense.

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

The federal government certainly has a responsibility to protect the citizens and federal property but even hinting at employing the military is 3rd world banana republic type stuff.  If they didn't have enough Marshalls, FBI, ATF and other federal officers perhaps they could use the Guard under Title 32 but even hinting at the active duty military is complete an utter non-sense.

Not disagreeing with you, but in fairness, CHOP/CHAZ and what it represented - i.e. a government in name only / chaos - is third-world-type shit too...

[ClearedHot]

40 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Not disagreeing with you, but in fairness, CHOP/CHAZ and what it represented - i.e. a government in name only / chaos - is third-world-type shit too...

Completely agree.  Also think a well organized group of federal law enforcement officers would have ended that situation very quickly.

[ViperMan]

On 11/28/2023 at 12:59 AM, ClearedHot said:

Completely agree.  Also think a well organized group of federal law enforcement officers would have ended that situation very quickly.

It also would have made for absolutely fantastic YouTube clips - like, on the order of the Kyle Rittenhouse show.

[Biff_T]

On 11/27/2023 at 4:18 PM, ViperMan said:

but in fairness, CHOP/CHAZ and what it represented - i.e. a government in name only / chaos

[raimius]

On 11/27/2023 at 6:18 PM, ViperMan said:

Not disagreeing with you, but in fairness, CHOP/CHAZ and what it represented - i.e. a government in name only / chaos - is third-world-type shit too...

It was an actual, legit insurrection....oddly/chaotically enough.  DC could have sent the 82nd Airborne.

Probably would have ended poorly, and the local government let it collapse under it's own stupidity.  

I have mixed opinions on whether letting it go until collapse or making a statement (with lots of firepower) saying "treason isn't a laughing matter" was the better option.

[ClearedHot]

Interesting one off debate on Fox tonight as Desantis and Newsom go cranium to cranium.  It could be a precursor for 2024 should Trump tumble from the legal issues (not likely), or Biden keel over or be removed by the DNC (50-50 on both).  Regardless, it will be a fight over the hardline ideology of both sides.  I will probably watch the Cowboy game instead.

[Sua Sponte]

6 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Interesting one off debate on Fox tonight as Desantis and Newsom go cranium to cranium.  It could be a precursor for 2024 should Trump tumble from the legal issues (not likely), or Biden keel over or be removed by the DNC (50-50 on both).  Regardless, it will be a fight over the hardline ideology of both sides.  I will probably watch the Cowboy game instead.

It’s going to be rough on the Cowboys since they can’t beat a team above .500.

[HeloDude]

[Sua Sponte]

He’s still on the ballot if he appeals to the SCOTUS (which he’ll do) before 4 Jan 24.

[HeloDude]

12 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

He’s still on the ballot if he appeals to the SCOTUS (which he’ll do) before 4 Jan 24.

I would be very surprised if this isn’t overruled by SCOTUS.  The left hates him so much that they’re all about removing him from the ballot under the 14th Amendment without him being charged, and much less, not convicted.  So for someone who says they’re all about democracy, etc they sure hate due process.

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

I would be very surprised if this isn’t overruled by SCOTUS.  The left hates him so much that they’re all about removing him from the ballot under the 14th Amendment without him being charged, and much less, not convicted.  So for someone who says they’re all about democracy, etc they sure hate due process.

He was charged with “incitement of insurrection” during his second impeachment, which he was acquitted of. He’s literally receiving due process by being able to appeal to higher level courts. The interesting focus I believe the SCOTUS look at is can one be disqualified via the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment after being acquitted either in a criminal trial or impeachment trial? The clause just has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” and doesn’t say “convicted of insurrection.” However, to me, that’s foolish to disqualify someone due to something when they had due process via a jury of their peers or the Senate and acquitted of it.

[Swizzle]

22 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

He was charged with “incitement of insurrection” during his second impeachment, which he was acquitted of. He’s literally receiving due process by being able to appeal to higher level courts. The interesting focus I believe the SCOTUS look at is can one be disqualified via the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment after being acquitted either in a criminal trial or impeachment trial? The clause just has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” and doesn’t say “convicted of insurrection.” However, to me, that’s foolish to disqualify someone due to something when they had due process via a jury of their peers or the Senate and acquitted of it.

Is POTUS an officer, Congressman, and/or state legislator/judicator sworn to the constitution per 14th Amendment, SEC. 3?

// ...member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state...// 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv#

I'd say several on this forum are officers (clearly), one to two are/were congressman, and who knows the last category....but POTUS fitting those categories, likely no. So why was it brought in the first place against #45?

 

[skybert]

7 hours ago, HeloDude said:

 

[skybert]

There is nothing close to pro democracy with liberals

[BFM this]

Informative primer on what’s going on where.

spoiler alert: Fulton Co DA might be kneecapping DoJ 

[ViperMan]

The solution I'd like to see is CO electoral votes just get tossed. Sorry...you don't want to participate in the election? Fine, your 10 votes are null. See you in 4 years.

[Sua Sponte]

8 hours ago, Swizzle said:

Is POTUS an officer, Congressman, and/or state legislator/judicator sworn to the constitution per 14th Amendment, SEC. 3?

// ...member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state...// 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv#

I'd say several on this forum are officers (clearly), one to two are/were congressman, and who knows the last category....but POTUS fitting those categories, likely no. So why was it brought in the first place against #45?

 

You doing think someone that swears in via the Oath of Office isn’t some type of officer?

Their analysis on the topic starts on PDF Pg. 70 to 89.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf